I pronounced it the right way. Being Dutch helps of course (the loch pronounciation mentioned earlier is close).
This is the opinion of the Wikipedia writer(s) who wrote this, and not particularly authoritative.
However “likely” that conjecture is, we know exactly how the Dutch pronounce the name of one of their greatest native artists.
Unless you’re speaking Dutch or the pronunciation of Dutch is somehow relevant to the topic of your conversation, showing off that you know how something is pronounced in Dutch is gratuitous. It’s nothing more than showing off. That’s true for any kind of knowledge.
Just to come back to the thread, I’m having a read of David Sweetman’s biography on Van Gogh (‘The Love of Many Things’) and it starts out with the same quandry- how do you pronounce ‘Van Gogh’. The conclusion Sweetman comes to is ‘Don’t’:
He preferred 'Vincent to ‘Van Gogh’ because foreigners would insist on mispronouncing it - ‘Van Gog’ was one of the most irritating. A hundred years since his death he most often called ‘Van Go’ or ‘Van Goff’ and neither would have pleased him any better. Simple, informal Vincent was easier and matched his character
(Sweetman, 7)
I am still interested in finding a first-hand comment about said annoyance with mispronunciation, as Sweetman is kind enough not to footnote his work in any way, but can’t yet afford the complete correspondence.
What about the word ‘dough’ ? Or the word ‘high’? Don’t we just drop the ‘gh’ in those words? So, “Van Go” doesn’t really deviate from accepted English pronunciation of words ending in ‘gh’.
True. But, using the words of the post you quoted, acting all “indignant and butthurt” is equally obnoxious. What if someone* is* from an English-speaking country which has a different common pronounciation?
It was illuminating to me that speaking my own language would label me as “pretentious” in your country (let alone the label of “wrong”). I’m neither pretentious nor wrong; I’m just speaking.
You’re cherry-picking rather freely. Is what you posted above your honest understanding of everything I’ve said in this thread?
And the evidence that he cared how it was said is in the letter of 25 March, 1888, responding to Theo’s entry of some of his works into the Independent’s Salon:
But — although this time it makes no difference at all — in future my name must be put in the catalogue the way I sign it on the canvases, i.e. Vincent and not Vangogh, for the excellent reason that people here wouldn’t be able to pronounce that name.
So far no guide from him on exactly how he wanted it said if it was said. Ah, well.
It’s simple. If you tell me I’m pretentious for pronouncing it ‘weirdly’ then I laugh at you for not knowing HOW to pronounce it. And then purposely start talking Dutch to you. Throw in a lot of gutteral sounds just to confuse you.
So yes, I pronounce it like ‘fun GoGH’ which indeed sounds like I got something in my throat. It’s fun.
I noticed btw that when my (American) girlfriend tries the typical Dutch sounds, she’s better at it when she doesn’t think too much about it. The moment she pays attention she can’t wrap her mind and her vocal chords around it.
It’s simple. If you tell me I’m pretentious for pronouncing it ‘weirdly’ then I’ll laugh and tell you you pronounce it wrong And then maybe purposely start talking Dutch to you. Throw in a lot of gutteral sounds just to confuse you.
So yes, I pronounce it like ‘fun GoGH’ which indeed sounds like I got something in my throat. It’s fun. (comparing van to fun is a good one btw. It’s the closest probably to our ‘van’ without going into phonetical symbols and suc)
I noticed btw that when my (American) girlfriend tries the typical Dutch sounds, she’s better at it when she doesn’t think too much about it. The moment she pays attention she can’t wrap her mind and her vocal chords around it.
That’s not what he said at all, and no one else has said that. You’re trying to create an issue that doesn’t exist. If you have an English accent and you say “Van Goff” while in America, people will either not know right away who you are talking about or will not think anything of it because you have an English accent anyway! It only sounds weird and “pretentious” when someone with an *American *accent pronounces one word in a different accent.
Anything but “Van Go” sounds affected, to me, in American English. “Van Goch” (rhymes with “loch”) sounds fine to me from UK speakers. But those are the only two pronunciations I’ve encountered in English–I can’t recall a time any English speaker used the Dutch pronunciation. (More like “fon hoch.”) I may have heard “van goff,” from UK speakers, but I swear “van goch” was the more usual pronunciation. However, I did spent much time among Scots.
That said, there are certain “more accurate” pronunciations that I like, like broosketta for “bruschetta,” but I never know when to pull that one out. Generally, I opt for the more common pronunciation, as the former causes confusion, but I have been to a few restaurants where the hard-k pronunciation was used by the wait staff. Then again, even though I’m a native speaker of Polish (although my fluency isn’t all that great these days), I pronounce words like pierogi in their English manner, so it’s just an idiosyncratic preference. And, even though I lived there for many years, I tend to say “Budapest” rather than “Budapesht” to anyone but English-speaking denizens/ex-denizens of that city.
Four people, including him have specifically said that.
I counter your accusation that I’m creating an issue that doesn’t exist, because I was told the following by your countrymen in this very thread:
Are you saying I should not believe the above posters that I would generally be considered pretentious or wrong?
Is it really a surprise to you that that is the conclusion I came to after reading the above posts?
Yes it is. Those comments do not support your conclusion.
You’re saying to me that “I’m wagging wrong or pretentious” does not, in fact, mean “I believe most Americans would think you wrong or pretentious”?
In that case, I apologize. Perhaps I don’t understand the vernacular word “wagging” and it means something else entirely. I just Googled it, and I’m getting nothing that helps (mainly the “wiggling/moving” meaning which I assume doesn’t apply here).
You’re ignoring the context of that comment.
An American who otherwise was unfamiliar with the “Van Goff” or “Van Gokh” pronunciations in British English, upon hearing a speaker of British English use either pronunciation would be likely to believe upon first hearing that the speaker was either wrong or pretentious. Upon learning that these are common pronunciations among speakers of British English, they would resume not caring.
There is nothing unusual or remarkable about any of this. Native English speakers are often surprised by pronunciations in other native English accents that they’re unfamiliar with. This board is full of such examples.
That’s what I said. I don’t understand where the disagreement is.
You are – if I may use your words – acting all “indignant and butthurt” about it, as if it’s something remarkable or unusual or morally deficient. Native English speakers are always encountering new pronunciations from each other, and this is a pretty common way for things to proceed. It’s as if you have never read any of the threads regarding variations in pronunciation or vocabulary even between Americans and Britons.
There’s a world of difference between “being surprised by a new pronounciation” and “acting all indignant and butthurt about it”.
The latter is, indeed, a pretty obnoxious reaction, and should I encounter such a reaction I would find it fairly obnoxious. I consider myself fortunate that I have not, as yet, experienced this.
The procedure in my experience has never involved indignation and butthurtery. Your mileage may vary. In my experience, that would be an unusual reaction to a different pronounciation.
At this point I have no idea what this conversation is about anymore.