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!
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.
I dont think you understand the objectives of scientists who study linguistic and use phonetic notation.....
That's not so. I understand it very well.
Things that are useful for scientists who study stuff aren't necessarily the best tools for the general public. In fact, if anything I'd suggest that usually they are not -- they're usually needlessly cumbersome, which IMO is the case for this.
I dont think you understand the objectives of scientists who study linguistic and use phonetic notation.....
That's not so. I understand it very well.
Things that are useful for scientists who study stuff aren't necessarily the best tools for the general public. In fact, if anything I'd suggest that usually they are not -- they're usually needlessly cumbersome, which IMO is the case for this.
I think the way you are suggesting is actually more cumbersome (and less precise) than IPA for someone who knows IPA. Sounds in other languages don't correspond directly to sounds in English and describing them is verbose and very approximate, sometimes factually incorrect.
Since your parents spoke Polish you probably know that Polish has two different 'sh' sounds. The descriptive way is to say that ś = 'sh' as in 'sheet' and 'sz' = 'sh' as in 'shop', but that's actually only a vague approximation and both sounds are very different than the English 'sh' sound. If you wanted to be more precise you would have to make a very complicated description like "like a 'sh' sound but you have to move your tongue back and make contact with the sides of the tongue rather than the tip". Instead of that you can use the IPA phoneme or it's description "voiceless retroflex fricative". It's a very concise and precise way of describing sounds in foreign languages.
I can't possibly disagree, since you're talking about people who know IPA!
I'm talking only about people who don't, and who see it "from scratch."
On the other hand: Great example about those different "sh" sounds in Polish. And yes indeed, that would be very hard if not impossible to show by the methods that I know.
So -- indeed there are things IPA can do that some or most other methods can't. What it leaves us with, IMO, is whether we think such things outweigh the negatives. I do realize that some of you might feel there aren't any negatives.
in general, methinks one has to pronounce any given name the way it is pronounced in the language it is in, thus: Proust (French) like proost (Am), Beethoven (German) like batehofen (Am), Chopin (French!) not to be transcribed but emphasis on the last syllable please, Maurice Ravel (French) like moríss ravéll, emphasis likewise, Bach (German) like Bach, Claude Debussy, a joy forever: clode debussí, and now for the last name: Skrjabin or Scriabin or Scriabine: only 2 syllables, Skrjá-bin, emphasis on the first horrible 4 letters.
Since your parents spoke Polish you probably know that Polish has two different 'sh' sounds. The descriptive way is to say that ś = 'sh' as in 'sheet' and 'sz' = 'sh' as in 'shop', but that's actually only a vague approximation and both sounds are very different than the English 'sh' sound.
What is the difference between the "sh" in "sheet" and the "sh" in "shop"?
What is the difference between the "sh" in "sheet" and the "sh" in "shop"?
I can't hear any.
You're right -- but it depends on how you say those words. I didn't realize it at the time, but when I saw his post, I automatically imagined "sheet" being said in a way that shows it.
How about this: Try already having your mouth sort of in position for the "ee" when you start the word. That ought to do it...
What is the difference between the "sh" in "sheet" and the "sh" in "shop"?
I can't hear any.
You're right -- but it depends on how you say those words. I didn't realize it at the time, but when I saw his post, I automatically imagined "sheet" being said in a way that shows it.
How about this: Try already having your mouth sort of in position for the "ee" when you start the word. That ought to do it...
This is one reason why explaining things this way doesn't work. English has only one 'sh' phoneme (voiceless post-alveolar fricative) but what happens is that some speakers raise their tongue toward the palate while pronouncing some words and this is what you describe above. The technical term for this is palatization. Another example is how some speakers will say "piano" with the 'i' being barely discernible, like it forms one vowel with 'a'. In that situation the 'p' is said to be palatized.
The problem is that not all speakers pronounce it that way, so it might not make sense to them.
May this thread never die. Never ever ever ever. Somebody please just pin it to the top of the forum already.
Wot??
Despite Chopin being the world's favorite (and most greatest) composer, and all of us having played his music for longer than we have lived, we're still unable to pronounce his name as he expected himself to be pronounced??
Let us start the Chopin Pronunciation Society to clarify matters (and to keep debating this important and pressing issue). After all, there's already a Chopin Appreciation Society (as if we still don't appreciate him enough.......).
it bothers me somewhat, bearing in mind the number of people paying attention to how to pronounce Chopin's name and the relatively few people being engaged - me included, so far - with the thread about performances of one of his greatest works. I'm now off to listen to Cziffra's performance. The extract in the BBC reviews - which I didn't have time to finish listening to, so I don't know the winner - intrigued me. I can't believe i had pretty well forgotten about Cziffra.
Sorry for this thread!! I just wanted to know ways to say it!
Didn’t think it would turn into this LOL.
Don’t apologize for the thread! There is absolutely nothing wrong with the topic. Threads have a life of their own and live as long as there is an interest. They may go dormant for even years and be resuscitated. 🤪
it bothers me somewhat, bearing in mind the number of people paying attention to how to pronounce Chopin's name and the relatively few people being engaged - me included, so far - with the thread about performances of one of his greatest works....
(Hello!!)
Well it's not like there's any competition between the threads!
I'm reminded of when two females were candidates for the two open Senate seats in California, and the campaigns put out buttons that said "You can vote for both."
The thing about that other thread is an issue of its own, actually I think a more general issue: The activity on this site is way down in general.
This thread has offered many interesting ideas on names and language. How we should pronounce names in foreign languages and when to differ from their origins. I've personally found it really interesting.
Working On: Beethoven Op. 53 Beethoven Op. 90 Schubert Op. 90 No. 3 Chopin Op. 31 Ravel Sonatine
This thread has offered many interesting ideas on names and language. How we should pronounce names in foreign languages and when to differ from their origins. I've personally found it really interesting.
Me too. And, I think 'tangential' things like this can be a big part of how people on a discussion site can get to 'know' one another, and therefore how there can be more bonding and how it can feel more and more interesting to be on the site. I think similarly about various kinds of off-topic subjects which are hugely discouraged by this site, for which I think it suffers.
