Parts of Speech

How languages hear each other

More from Prof. Anthony Esolen:

One of the features of my current History of the English Language class at Magdalen College is the attention I pay to how the speakers of one language hear or do not hear the sounds of another language, and "translate" those sounds into something that makes sense to them.

 

I remember the last time I was in Italy (1998, alas), I was playing the mischievous boy-professor, teaching a bunch of kids a little about baseball, by pitching a soccer ball at them against the back side of the village church, while they tried to hit it with a broomstick. When they missed, I called out, "Strike!" -- in the way that we English speakers have, not aspirating the final consonant. The kids heard it as "STRI" -- no K. If you want to imitate a Generic Furrener Speaking English, one thing to do is to aspirate every final consonant. Another thing to do is to reduce the English diphthongs O (O + OO in American; EH + OO in most British accents) and AY (AI + EE) to simple vowels. Try it ...

 

Anyway, when you don't have a certain sound in your language, it can be hard to hear it at all, or not to mishear it. Case in point: Welsh LL, the voiceless L, is a rare sound in the world's languages (though I am told that perhaps it is the "hissing" sound represented in Hebrew by the letter Shin, with the dot on the top left). English speakers could not make out what the Welshmen were saying when they uttered the name LLWYD (GRAY), and turned it sometimes into FLOYD. Americans in the southwest found it hard to hear the lightly pronounced intervocalic D in Spanish JUZGADO, so we ended up with HOOSEGOW... And of course English and French and Spanish and Portuguese speakers almost always misheard native Indian words when those languages had sounds that the European languages did not have as phonemes, such as the glottal stop, or the uvular stop now transcribed as Q, which Europeans will always render as K (C).

 

The English TH, meanwhile, is a somewhat rare phoneme in the world's languages, and is often heard as some other spirant pronounced near the front of the mouth, usually as F or V. This is true even of Cockney English (EARTH > "URF"), but it was also true as the Indo European original veered off into the Italic branch. Latin has F in place of the original TH, and that sometimes plays the devil with us as we try to find cognates: thus Latin FUMUS, SMOKE, is cognate with Greek THYMOS (and English DUST), and Latin FACERE is cognate with Greek TITHENAI and English DO. But the same thing happened in Russian: Greek THEODOROS > Russian FYODOR; Hebrew MARTHA > Russian MARFA, and so on.

That's how I think of the business of articulatory phonetics. Example: Indo European words that begin with W correspond to words in Welsh that begin with GW. Why? What does the G have to do with the W? Oddly enough, the late Latin that Italian came from did not have words beginning with GW + a vowel, until the speakers adopted German words beginning with W, and THEN they hardened the W to GW, or that is how they heard it to begin with. So we have Germanic WASTE, but Italian GUASTARE, or Germanic WALTER, but Italian GUALTIERI, or Germanic WAR, but Italian GUERRA. Similarly, Latin VULTUS, COUNTENANCE, from the same ancient root that gives us Welsh GWELD, to SEE; Indo European WER-, MAN (Latin VIR, Anglo Saxon WER), but Welsh GWR...

 

One thing we can do that might help some students learn a foreign language is to instruct them a little in how sounds are made -- how their own sounds are made, because we take those things for granted. Or this may just be my being a geek about phonetics.....

We wuz robbed of a whole world of culture when they reformed language teaching

This is one of those scales-fall-from-my-eyes moments. Looking back, I think I must have known that something was wrong with how we were taught languages -- although in my case, a great deal was right with it, too -- but I really never would have put it all together if Prof. Anthony Esolen hadn't pointed it out. He writes:

Sometime in the 1970's, the aim of teaching languages changed pretty noticeably, and therefore also the range and the kinds of languages taught. In my small Catholic high school, we had full curricula in French, Spanish, German, and Latin, and the school allowed you to take Latin instead of History, if you were taking another language besides. The goal -- which was, shall we say, never entirely settled -- was to get you to be able to Read Good Things in the other language. But eventually, that goal would be abandoned, for the sake of a fluency in conversation which you were really never going to attain without being immersed in the language somewhere for many months. The practical result was this: In 1960, you might study Spanish to read Don Quixote. In 1980, you studied Spanish to ask where the bathrooms were in Tijuana. In 1960, you might study German to sing the great Lieder that Schumann or someone set to music. In 1980, you studied German to order ein Glas Bier in Heidelberg. In 2000, you didn't study German at all. In 1960, you might study Latin to read Cicero. In 1980, you might study Latin to gain 60 or so points on your verbal SAT; because obviously you couldn't order Falernian wine in Mediolanum. In 2000, you didn't study Latin at all.

 

I began to notice very early in my teaching career (1985) that students could have four years of a language in high school and still not know the first thing about grammar. It meant that after all that time, they could sputter out a few stock phrases, but they could not read a newspaper, and forget about reading a real novel. If it can't be imagined as being said at a restaurant or a train station or a booth at a flea market, forget it.

 

Strange, though, that they were spending four years apparently studying A LANGUAGE -- apparently -- but never studying LANGUAGE, how it works, what it does, how we pronounce things, how we hear things, how it helps us organize things, how it is almost necessary for us even to have any kind of thought. They were expected to learn a language at age 15 in the same way they might have learned it at age 2, when the circumstances were completely different, both outside them and inside them. And the conversational technique shoved aside every other way, every other inroad, every other necessarily artificial but still illuminating tool for understanding.

 

"Norse’s raw energy simmers under the surface of everything we say:" 139 Norse Words that Invaded English

139 Old Norse Words That Invaded The English Language

BY JOHN-ERIK JORDAN

Sfyria -- Greece's whistled language has lasted 2500 years

"Greece's disappearing whistled language". BBC Travel. BBC.com. 

Also at: "Greece's disappearing whistled language". BBC Travel. BBC.com. (via Wayback archive)

 

 

 

 

 

 

They say "PHILOTIMO" can't be translated ...

... but it can be approached by:

• “Doing the right thing”
• “Loving and honouring God and your society”
• "Striving for perfection”
• “Stepping out from your comfort zone to help someone in need”

Philotimo comes from the Ancient Greek word philotimia (φιλοτιμία) ... the first attested written reference dates to the dawn of the Greek classical period (6th and 7th Centuries BC) in the writings of lyric poet Pindar. For Pindar and other early writers, the word meant love of honour or distinction, or ambition, but often in a negative way. In mythology, for example, Achilles' philotimo was wounded when King Agamemnon took away Queen Briseis, his prize for bravery on the battlefield.

It was only after the consolidation of democracy in classical Athens around the 4th and 5th Centuries BC, when competition was replaced by co-operation, that the word gained a more positive connotation. At that time, “a man with philotimo signified someone who loves to receive the praises of his city, but first serves the community.” 

...

“While the West was experiencing Enlightenment and developing modern states that tied together individuals under the rule of law and an abstract sense of responsibility, the subjugated and inward-looking Greeks were bound by pride, localism and interpersonal relationships,” Vertoudakis said. “Instead of developing the kind of institutional consciousness seen in Western Europe, Greek communities were imbued with philotimo, which was triggered not by law and logic but intense emotion and some degree of intimacy.”

... locals not only grabbed kitchen knives or unsophisticated weapons to go out and fight the enemy, but also trudged through the towering, rugged mountains and steep gorges of Crete to find the best hideouts for the British and Australian soldiers. Neither the fact that they were half-starved due to the Nazi-induced Great Famine nor the death penalty for sheltering soldiers fazed them; their sense of duty, honour and courage took precedence.

Almost 76 years later, locals on the islands of Lesbos, Chios and Kos, places renowned for their beauty and touristic prowess – yet all in years of deep recession – have been jumping in boats to rescue refugees reaching the Eastern Aegean shores in droves. Some have even been witnessed plunging in icy waters as the rickety boats approach the islands.

“Why are you congratulating me, my children?” asked 86-year-old Emilia Kamvisi when journalists asked her why she and her friends, 90-year-old Efstratia Mavrapidou and 86-year-old Maritsa Mavrapidou – who were later nominated for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize – go to the coast of Lesbos every day to help weary female refugees and their children. “What special am I doing? Wouldn’t you do the same?” she continued.

Also nominated was 41-year-old fisherman, Stratis Valiamos, who often takes his tiny wooden boat into the Aegean to rescue people off his own accord. “I’m out fishing, I can see people shouting for help. What can I do? Pretend I can’t see? Pretend I can’t hear? That’s the right thing to do”. ...

"The Greek Word that Can't be Translated" -- BBC

Silbo Gomero -- the long-distance whistled Spanish of La Gomera in the Canaries

"A whistled register of Spanish used by inhabitants of La Gomera in the Canary Islands to communicate over a distance of up to three miles, across the deep ravines and narrow valleys that radiate through the island." -- Wikipedia

Listen (turning on captioning helps).

 

 

 

Bandwurmwörter: "Tapeworm Words." Like Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz ...

... (RkReÜAÜG for short, beef-labeling-monitoring-delegation-law), Kraftfahrzeug-Haftpflichtversicherung (car insurance), Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschafte (legal protection insurance company, which sounds redundant), or "Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft," the "Association for Subordinate Officials of the Head Office Management of the Danube Steamboat Electrical Services." Don't say I'm not looking out for your kulturlichnichtineinmeinschaftgefalllenheit (culturally-not-down-a-mineshaft-fallingness).

Why Germans bid 'Auf Wiedersehen' to the longest word in the language

CTVNews.ca

#Confucius's "Rectification of names" is about clear, honest language, not ministerial hierarchy.

 Tsze-lu said, "The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order with you to administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?"

The Master replied, "What is necessary is to rectify names." "So! indeed!" said Tsze-lu. "You are wide of the mark! Why must there be such rectification?"

The Master said, "How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve.

"If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.

"When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot.

"Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect."

Analects, Ch. 13

This passage strikes many Westerners, in this degraded and confused age, as a call for clear, unvarnished, precise and non-"evolving"  language, especially about law and public policy. It has always struck me that way.

But all over the internet you will read that it's not about that, it's about defining, honoring and observing officials' status, titles and powers according to a fixed hierarchy. That sounds to me like a freshman B-minus term paper answer -- how can 1,000 cribbed exam answers, by undergrads who didn't do the reading, all be wrong? Some people think of Confucius as a crabbed, fussy reactionary prig obsessed with status, titles and ceremony, and therefore, whatever he says must be about that? 

I don't think so. Simply reading the entire passage above, instead of taking the three words "rectification of names" and slapping them onto our stereotype of Confucius, should make that interpretation impossible. And while he talks of "a superior man" he clearly describes that superiority as a matter of behavior and wisdom, and a proportionate humility, not birth or status.

 But it's good to see an actual Chinese Philosophy professor, who knows the language, take the same view. Manyul Im, a Philosophy Professor at Fairfield University, writes:

Confucius famously says in Analects 13.3 that the first thing to do in conducting state affairs is to “rectify names” — or “correct terms.” Otherwise, he says, “speech will not follow” (yan bu shun 言不順), with the result that “affairs will not be accomplished” (shi bu cheng 事不成), with the result that “rites and music will not flourish,” with the final result that “punishments and rewards will not be appropriate.”

You could ask a lot of questions here as to what this all means. The one I’ll ask is whether this has anything to do with Analects 12.11–as a lot of people seem to think–where Confucius is asked about governing and he says, very tersely, “jun jun, chen chen, fu fu, zi zi” (君君臣臣父父子子). The way most people seem to render this is some version of “A lord should lord, a minister should minister, a father should father, and a son should son,” where the verbal occurrence is usually embellished (plausibly, I think) with “should act like a proper______.” There are a couple of things that bother me about this, however:

1. I don’t see how 12.11, so construed, is about “names” or “terms” (ming). It seems ostensibly about lords, ministers, fathers, and sons on the one hand and on the other about roles or actions–not about the terms or titles for such people or such roles (or actions). To be about names or terms, at least one of the instances of each pair, the noun or verb–assuming that is how we should construe the grammar–would have to be a mention as opposed to a use. But, how are we to read 12.11 then?
2. Suppose a lord does not act like a proper lord, a minister like a proper minister, and so forth. Why would that threaten to undermine correct or effective speech, as 13.3 states? I could almost see how improper use of the terms–for example, calling someone a lord who is not actually a lord–could undermine correct usage, if the practice caught on or was enforced. But the fact that someone who isin fact, legitimately, a lord isn’t living up to the name or title, doesn’t have an effect on the correct usage of the name or title; correct usage is necessary to make that judgment in the first place. And, if he isn’t legitimately a lord, then his not living up to the title is just to be expected and doesn’t pose a problem. So, 12.11 can’t really be about making sure people live up to their (properly) applied titles if it is to be relevant to 13.3.

From "Rectification of Names (zhengming, 正名)" on Manyul Im’s Chinese Philosophy Blog

I couldn't say it better, or with any authority. But I can add this: In 13 Confucius is talking about what to do first, when reforming a state's government. And he makes a very general statement that language should be "in accordance with the truth of things" so that "affairs" are "carried on to success". He emphasizes how universal and general this effect and necessity is, so why should we interpret it as only being about ministers' titles?