|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| KOREAN_MAN wrote: |
FYI, the word 'ideology' is pronounced ee-deh-ohl-lo-ghi (이데올로기).  |
I had a student challenge me this in an advanced class once after I pronounced it with a short 'i'. After my usual, well maybe the Americans say it differently spiel, I went and got a dictionary. Turns out both short and long 'i' pronounciations are valid in American English.
Last edited by OneWayTraffic on Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
xenok
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scotticus wrote: |
The difference being that, in our case, the Roman alphabet CAN be adapted to fit most languages. Yes, it gets ugly (with dots, lines and squiggles above letters to denote alternate pronunciations), but it IS done, and done often. There's a reason my student's Chinese books are transliterated using our alphabet, with no Korean in sight. |
the Roman alphabet works most of the time because a lot of language use it, you get into a problem when you try to romanize languages that don't use the Roman alphabet (although i must say romanization of Japanese seems to be decent). let's take Chinese since you did mentioned it. the romanization of Chinese (hanyu pinyin) uses the same alphabet (with inflections) but a completely different pronunciation system. so it doesn't really apply in this case. for example, just take any Chinese character that starts with X, e.g. Xu or Xuang, and try to romanize with the standard english pronunciation.
| Quote: |
On the other hand, Hangul does not adapt. They have no way of producing any of the sounds their language is missing. So we have to hear lodge-ee instead of large, beetameen instead of vitamin and pah-ee-teeng instead of fighting. While the rigidity of Hangul is awesome for learning Korean and writing Korean, it's completely useless for anything else.
I don't blame the Korean people. They're just repeating the words they're reading. It's an issue with the inability of Hangul to adapt to outside influences. What is stopping them from creating new characters to represent the sounds they're missing? |
has English added letters to the alphabet to capture sounds from different languages? has any language recently (past 50 years?) adopted new characters to their alphabet to incorporate foreign languages? japanese? i'm not saying your accusations are not valid, i'm just stating that i think almost all languages are guilty of what you are saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xenok
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ilsanman wrote: |
Roma and Italia are correct in Italian language, last I heard. Am I wrong?
| pest2 wrote: |
| ED209 wrote: |
| Get it sometimes. Confused a kid today by telling them it's Rome not Roma. |
EXCEPT its Roma in Italy (Italia), not Rome. If you are having a conversation in English, maybe Rome is better, but when in Korea, do as the Romans do..... |
|
i believe the Korean pronunciation for most major cities are based off the pronunciation of that local language. that's why Rome is pronounced Roma (as it is in Italian), Prague is pronounced Praha (as it is in Czech), Moscow is pronounced Moskova (as it is in Russian), etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Japanese didn't, strictly speaking, introduce a new alphabet to accomodate a new language. After all katakana and hirigana are completly isomorphic (ie same sounds, different characters). They probably introduced it as a way of segregating introduced words from native ones, according to my old high school teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
La21
Joined: 27 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:14 am Post subject: pronunciation |
|
|
| I had a taxi driver give me a lesson on how to pronounce McDonald's the other day. Apparently if want a ride there I have to pronounce it Mac-Donal-DUH (heavy emphasis on the "duh"). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jajdude
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nothing beats Jogee Bushee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rai
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Location: Osaka
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pak Yu Man wrote: |
| Natalia wrote: |
Having being raised in countries ranging from England to Australia to half of Asia, I have anything but an American accent. I had a lot of trouble with students with "twenny" (twenty), "beddar" (better) and so on.....
Not a single day of my contract went by without a Korean telling me not to pronounce the letter 'T', because Americans don't. 
|
Actually N.Americans pronounce the t. Next time tell your student "the t sound changes to a d sound when the t is between two voiced vowels".
That'll shut them the hell up. |
Are there unvoiced vowels?? I had no idea.
Yeah, whenever speakers of British English get on my case for my NAE flap, I make fun of them for not pronouncing the "r" in "water". It's those liddle differences that make life interesting.
Oh, and what about the poor little "h"?
'e 'as a 'eadache, indeed! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgiles
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
oh don't start!!!
what about u yanks and errrrrrrrb?? what happened to the poor old aitch in that? >_< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pest2
Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgiles wrote: |
i'm with xenok with this one.
scotticus, tell me, for example....
what new characters have been created in the english version of romanisation to accurately represent the korean sounds ㅉ,ㅍ,ㅎ,ㄹ???
|
Did you ever try to spell out an English word using hangeul? Sure, Korean has characters for most of the same sounds, but only a very small percentage of the phoenemes (sp?). You can't end one in "s", ever, for example. And you can never end one with multiple consonants such as "st" or "rp". Try and it just sounds idiotic; as if being spoken by a complete retard.
I dont need to restate what Scotticus said about English being compatible with most other languages -- thoughbeit sometimes poorly -- in this sense.
English hasnt created new characters to accomodate Korean simply because no one really cares about learning Korean. Who would be responsible for making such new characters? Koreans. I rest my case.
Saying English is deficient because it lacks a horrorific system with which to speak to a Judge whereas Korean is not defficient because it has that horrorific system is like comparing apples and oranges.
Korean horrorific system has a specific rule for every age, gender, and master/slave situation possible. Is it better to have to be a woman and address a man who is 1 year older as if he were the judge???? Is it better to address some smelly rude old man at a convenience store, "your honor?" Come on! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajgeddes
Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Location: Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| The Japanese didn't, strictly speaking, introduce a new alphabet to accomodate a new language. After all katakana and hirigana are completly isomorphic (ie same sounds, different characters). They probably introduced it as a way of segregating introduced words from native ones, according to my old high school teacher. |
Actually, I am pretty sure (but could be wrong) that Katakana was made for use with males and hirigana was made for use with females originally. Hence the more flowing, prettier hirigana and the sharper, stronger looking katakana. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgiles wrote: |
oh don't start!!!
what about u yanks and errrrrrrrb?? what happened to the poor old aitch in that? >_< |
Why do the British pronounce the h in schedule but not in school? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pest2 wrote: |
| [The horror-ific system, as you should have called it, IS crapp. It's a left over idea from a more primitive ethical and cultural time during which bondage and servitude were still an accepted part of society and life. Its a pity its embedded in Korean and cant be removed.. .no doubt another barrier to making Korea cease to be a society of cave people. |
I'd say it's more of a pity that people are allowed to post such racist nonsense on this board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgiles
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pest2 wrote: |
| mrgiles wrote: |
i'm with xenok with this one.
scotticus, tell me, for example....
what new characters have been created in the english version of romanisation to accurately represent the korean sounds ㅉ,ㅍ,ㅎ,ㄹ???
|
Did you ever try to spell out an English word using hangeul? Sure, Korean has characters for most of the same sounds, but only a very small percentage of the phoenemes (sp?). You can't end one in "s", ever, for example. And you can never end one with multiple consonants such as "st" or "rp". Try and it just sounds idiotic; as if being spoken by a complete retard.
I dont need to restate what Scotticus said about English being compatible with most other languages -- thoughbeit sometimes poorly -- in this sense.
English hasnt created new characters to accomodate Korean simply because no one really cares about learning Korean. Who would be responsible for making such new characters? Koreans. I rest my case.
Saying English is deficient because it lacks a horrorific system with which to speak to a Judge whereas Korean is not defficient because it has that horrorific system is like comparing apples and oranges.
Korean horrorific system has a specific rule for every age, gender, and master/slave situation possible. Is it better to have to be a woman and address a man who is 1 year older as if he were the judge???? Is it better to address some smelly rude old man at a convenience store, "your honor?" Come on! |
sigh. my point wasn't that the korean alphabet is superior to the english romanised one. that's sort of like the opposite of my point.
i fully agree that because of the syllabic way each character is formed,and the inability to blend some consonants that are blended in english, in hangeul means that it's inadequate in many ways. what i don't agree with is that the english writing system is any better. i don't think u've addressed my reasons for believing this.
my point is that, unless u know the sounds of the second language already, AND the strange rules applied to the english alphabet, you would not be able to use the romanisation of ANY language (even OTHERS using similar roman characters!!) to speak that language the way a native speaker would.
i think u missed my point re the honorific system as well. i was not saying that english was deficient. only different. i don't think those two words necessarily mean the same thing. perhaps u do.
"every age, gender and master/slave situation?" I'm sorry, but u're merely displaying ur ignorance of the korean language now.
"defficient??" if u can spell the word correctly ONCE in the post, why can't u do it again? did it exhaust u the first time?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scotticus
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| xenok wrote: |
the Roman alphabet works most of the time because a lot of language use it, you get into a problem when you try to romanize languages that don't use the Roman alphabet (although i must say romanization of Japanese seems to be decent). let's take Chinese since you did mentioned it. the romanization of Chinese (hanyu pinyin) uses the same alphabet (with inflections) but a completely different pronunciation system. so it doesn't really apply in this case. for example, just take any Chinese character that starts with X, e.g. Xu or Xuang, and try to romanize with the standard english pronunciation. |
Define "standard pronunciation." The Roman alphabet isn't a phonetic alphabet, no matter how much phonics teachers want you to believe it. Pronunciation is based on the specific words and, generally, what culture the word originated in.
The Roman alphabet, when inadequate, as it often is, is then changed to be able to passably/accurate describe the sights and sounds of a language. Both Chinese and Korean have two major forms of transliteration, among other minor ones. If you know how to read that form of transliteration, then you can speak the language, just by reading it, with an excellent chance of pronouncing the words correctly. This is, of course, in addition to all the little additions and punctuation that make the Roman alphabet able to accurately represent most languages, after some changes.
An easy example is the word Sinchon. Well all know it's pronounced Sheenchone, not as it's spelled (if we were reading it the way an English word would be read). This is because we all know that, in the standard Korean transliterartion, Si - shee, and o = long o.
My whole point is that Korean has no such thing. When the word "large" becomes "lodge-ee," there is no "correct" way to say it. Among Koreans, it's pronounced "lodge-ee," and many (not all) Koreans will look at you funny if you pronounce it the correct way. Korean takes words from foreign languages and, if they don't fit into the rigid rules of Hangul, butchers them.
PS - Thanks to the condescending guy from a few posts after mine. The one who explained WHY they pronounce it "lodge-ee." I know WHY they do it... that doesn't make it correct or remotely helpful to the people who are going to someday go overseas and look like morons when they Konglish the hell out of words amongst native speakers who don't understand them. Do you really think I would be arguing about the merits of Hangul if I had no understanding of how the system works?
| Quote: |
has English added letters to the alphabet to capture sounds from different languages? has any language recently (past 50 years?) adopted new characters to their alphabet to incorporate foreign languages? japanese? i'm not saying your accusations are not valid, i'm just stating that i think almost all languages are guilty of what you are saying. |
A quick example, probably most pertinent to those of us using a keyboard, is the "~." It's not a new letter, but it's a way to convey a sound that the normal letter would not make.
Over the last 50 years? Terrible example. Users of the Roman alphabet have been in contact with, and transliterating foreign languages, for hundreds of years. Why would we be adding to systems that already function? I've already explained that there is a system for transliterating every major foreign language, thus, at this point, why would we need even more changes?
Korea is in a very different position. Unlike the Roman alphabet, it is only a recent addition to the world stage (as far as being a "major" player), and thus needs to act like it if they're going to adapt and be taken seriously.
Once again:
For the people who are going to say I'm bashing on Korea for this post. I'M NOT. Hangul is great for Korean. It's simple, effective and elegant... when using Korean. However, it butchers any other language, even ones that are etymologically similar, like Chinese and Japanes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgiles
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
scotticus,
an intelligent post. i think i may have misunderstood ur position before.
i agree that using the standard "hangeulisation" (if such a construction is allowed) of lodge would produce 로드지 (or perhaps 로드즈?) - rodeugee or rodeugeu. both clearly not only inadequate, but probably not understandable by a native english speaker at all. fair enough.
now, i would render 꽃 as "kkot" using the romanisation system i know the best. i think u agree with me that an ordinary reader of english would not be able to be understood by a korean native speaker if he read that aloud without knowing any korean. stop me if i'm wrong here.
i think ur argument is that it's easier for an english speaker to be understood when using a different language by learning a few rules (so they could pronounce "dich" like a german if they know how the ch functions at the end of a word in german).
what's stopping the korean reader and speaker from learning similar rules? sure, it would be a complicated rule for an english word like "lodge," but how complicated are the tonalities of mandarin? an english speaker would also have to learn complicated rules to be able to read a romanised mandarin word and be understood. i don't really see that big a difference.
i'm not sure (but then again this isn't an academic paper), but it seems to me that the hangeulisation of japanese speech works maybe better than the english romanisation. but even if i can't find a supporting example like this, i think my argument stands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
