Comments on: English Polish http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/english-polish Language in a word Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:06:06 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Philip TAYLOR http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/english-polish/comment-page-1#comment-5205 Philip TAYLOR Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:27:14 +0000 http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=238#comment-5205 Leaving aside the slight digression to Scottish, Welsh and English names, the recommendation that Łódż be pronounced as "Lodz" rather than "Woodge" interests me, in particular because I am not entirely convinced that Graham's earlier question as to whether one should use "the native pronunciation of a place name if [one knows] what it is" is directly relevant here. Graham asked "[d]oes this mean that when I am speaking French, I should continue to say “London” rather than “Londres”? Should Spaniards say “United States” rather than “Estados Unidos”." In both of these examples, we are actually discussing two different names for the same place; in Łódż/Lodz, we have only one (the Polish name), albeit frequently spelled without diacritics. So my gut feeling is that it is not unreasonable for a newscaster to use the "correct" (i.e., local) pronunciation for a given place if (a) the name is the same in both languages (modulo diacritics) and (b) the name has not become so common in its anglicised form that use of the foreign pronunciation would seem "precious" [1]. "Paris" would be an obvious example of the latter. [1] In sense 4 of Answers.com's definition : Affectedly dainty or overrefined: precious mannerisms. Leaving aside the slight digression to Scottish, Welsh and English names, the recommendation that Łódż be pronounced as “Lodz” rather than “Woodge” interests me, in particular because I am not entirely convinced that Graham’s earlier question as to whether one should use “the native pronunciation of a place name if [one knows] what it is” is directly relevant here. Graham asked “[d]oes this mean that when I am speaking French, I should continue to say “London” rather than “Londres”? Should Spaniards say “United States” rather than “Estados Unidos”.” In both of these examples, we are actually discussing two different names for the same place; in Łódż/Lodz, we have only one (the Polish name), albeit frequently spelled without diacritics. So my gut feeling is that it is not unreasonable for a newscaster to use the “correct” (i.e., local) pronunciation for a given place if (a) the name is the same in both languages (modulo diacritics) and (b) the name has not become so common in its anglicised form that use of the foreign pronunciation would seem “precious” [1]. “Paris” would be an obvious example of the latter.

[1] In sense 4 of Answers.com’s definition : Affectedly dainty or overrefined: precious mannerisms.

]]> By: Graham http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/english-polish/comment-page-1#comment-5172 Graham Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:41:02 +0000 http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=238#comment-5172 It's not just Americans: English people frequently mispronounce Scottish and Welsh place names, and many Scots have problems with some English place names. It’s not just Americans: English people frequently mispronounce Scottish and Welsh place names, and many Scots have problems with some English place names.

]]> By: pandammonium http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/english-polish/comment-page-1#comment-5170 pandammonium Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:47:58 +0000 http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=238#comment-5170 Does that mean American English speakers can be expected to pronounce British place names, for example, Edinburgh, properly? ;) Does that mean American English speakers can be expected to pronounce British place names, for example, Edinburgh, properly? ;)

]]>