I’m really uncomfortable with threads like that, especially from a new poster.
The behind the scenes stuff we check doesn’t indicate sock or troll though.
So I pretty sure as a Mod I need to leave it be.
I do think some of the replies were really unhelpful. Better to not reply.
I suspect he might not post again anyway.
Our crazed language enthusiast is back, with more inane ramblings. Wondering why a phonetic language has misspellings. I mean, gee, different people hear things (and therefore would spell things) differently. The whole R/L thing in Japanese? Or any of a dozen different examples?
I note they’ve had no takers in 3 hours, and hope we can ignore this person. Yes, they’re only a maybe troll, but they’re an irritant.
Phonetic language? That expression triggers me.
Phonetic written languages are a thing, since not every writing system is phonetic. But all spoken languages are phonetic, since phonetic really just means “related to speech sounds”.
I get being bugged by the redundancy when used sloppily.
It’s utter bullshit that Swahili is “a phonetic language” - in which script? Using which diacritic set? Which dialect? So the first thing is learning where this troll (and they are a troll) learned this bullshit factoid, and getting them to stop using that source. Someone should get right on that…
I’m not holding my breath.
In my own inimitable way, I’m trying to be that someone. But, yes, it’s really running into trolling.
My deal is when people such as “our crazed language enthusiast” say thins along the lines he does. It’s fine to not know the subject when you stick your toes in the water. But that’s not what he’s been doing. He hops from tide pool to tide pool, utterning nonsensical things as the premise, then asks questions which, given the premises, can only be nonsensical themselves. He may not be a troll, but he certainly hasn’t evidenced any learning from responses to his posts.
What makes him a troll is the constant belligerence.
I honestly apologize if the loose use of language irritated you. I was using the language the poster chose for their OP so it could be easily identified, but I shouldn’t harm my fellow troll-hunters in an effort to identify said fell beasts.
Leave that to the trolls! Tally-ho!
I can understand that word being irritating, but it is the term I heard for that concept, too. Usually I hear it said about Spanish, and directly in the context of explaining why they don’t really have spelling bees or anything like that. The idea is that, the more “phonetic” a language, the fewer possible ambiguities there can be in mapping orthography to phonetics.
Of course, the obvious conclusion to the guy’s question would be that the language isn’t quite as “phonetic” as he believes. The examples of misspellings inherently suggest the misspelling would be pronounced similarly to the accepted spelling. Heck, that’s a key part of how we figure out how languages were pronounced when we don’t have recordings of them.
English has a very phonetic written language, and it’s probably the most ambiguous language to learn, since it’s such a hodgepodge of various loanwords and pronunciation rules from other languages all mashed up together. Maybe English is the exception? Which would be ironic, since we’re talking about something that should be a guideline using a language that clearly contradicts it.
I’ve always been told that English is one of the least “phonetic” languages under this definition. There are a lot of sounds in English that be spelled in multiple ways , and lots of letter combinations that can be pronounced in multiple different ways (think -ough).
I sounds like this definition of “phonetic” is not the one a linguist would use. Even the Wikipedia article linked in that thread uses a different term for the concept: “phonemic orthography.”
When I studied languages (not as a true linguist, just as someone being taught the languages themselves) there was a difference made between a phonetic written language, where characters represented sounds, and non-phonetic written languages where they didn’t. I studied Japanese for years, and kanji as used in the Japanese written language was just using Chinese characters, and none of those were phonetic. Each character represented an idea and you’d have to use context to know how to pronounce it.
English is kind of like that, true. The letter C is pronounced like an S or a K depending on context, or even like neither if paired with an H for example. But even if it’s a flexible pronunciation, it’s still phonetic in the sense that characters represent distinctive sounds (or a small range of sounds). In some languages the characters don’t represent sounds at all. You have to first figure out what concept is represented by the character, then figure out the word based on context, then pronounce the word based on memory. There is no direct connection at all.
Come to think of it, if one is in a Spanish – or any of a number of other languages – spelling bee is attention paid to diacritics?
Ahem, self included of course, but…
And another dismissive flip of the hand to all those who say we discuss nothing of value in the Pit.
I think that was the point - spelling bees don’t really exist in most other languages
Even for English, spelling bees were probably invented in the US, some time after Webster’s attempt to standardize and simplify spelling in American English. And to be fair, our mongrel language had (and still has) some oddities.
To the extent spelling bees exist in other countries (I think several South Asian countries do them now?), they seem to be copying us and more in the last couple generations rather than centuries. Basically, spelling bees are relatively new (less than 2 centuries) and don’t seem to have caught on in languages with a Latin alphabet but with diacriticals.
Spell “lingüístico”.
L - I - N - G - U (not an ordinary U, but the one wearing two little dots) - I (with a little feather sticking out of it) - S - T - I (no feather) - C - O.
You forgot to specify whether the feather is leaning left or right.
Thank you. I was going to jump in, but you caught on first. Phonetics covers all sounds, including sounds that aren’t meaningful. Phonemes are the set of sounds that are meaningful to the speakers. A truly phonetic writing would be filled with irrelevant details of interest only to specialists. Think of how many Dopers piss and moan when someone uses the International Phonetic Alphabet at even a phonemic level. You do not want a phonetic alphabet!
This is phonetics: The t in top and the t in stop are two different phonetic sounds. But they’re the same phoneme. Speakers are not even aware that they’re two different sounds, because the phonemes are what we subjectively perceive.
Finnish and Swahili have the best one-to-one match of graphemes with phonemes. Minimal to zero ambiguity about pronunciation and spelling. Tibetan script has the worst match of grapheme to phoneme, far worse than English, and Burmese is pretty bad too. Like English, these languages were gifted the alphabet shortly before they underwent major sound changes. Finnish and Swahili were set in writing more recently and have had less time for pronunciation and spelling to diverge.
Are we talking only “living” spoken languages here? Because AFAICT Sanskrit users have always taken this phonemic-accuracy-in-orthography thing very seriously.
The distinction between living and dead languages is relevant here. Sanskrit is forever fixed in its classical written form. A living language will change its pronunciation over time. Every so often a given language institutes a spelling reform to keep up with pronunciation changes. Noah Webster did that for American English, but otherwise spoken English and Tibetan have little to anchor their changing pronunciation to their fixed orthography. (Except for the occasional weirdness of spelling pronunciations: nowadays people are pronouncing the t in often, which was not done way back when I learned to speak.)
Speaking of Sanskrit, it is notable for having the world’s first linguists and grammarians like Pāṇinī who analyzed the phonemics of the language and crafted a script carefully ordered according to the phonemic structure. It makes all other writing systems, except for Hangul, appear sloppy and haphazard.
Speaking of Hangul, my impression of its phonemic perfection was shattered when I started taking Korean lessons on Duolingo, only to discover that modern Korean pronunciation has been diverging from its spelling. Hangul was a phonemically perfect system maybe 200 years ago, but no more.