Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: imparare la pronuncia

Avevo bisogno di un consiglio:
come si può imparare la pronuncia della parole??
Ci sono delle regole valide (se si dove posso trovarle) oppure ogni parola è 
da vedersi come un caso a se stante quindi bisogna imparare la pronuncia di 
ogni parola a memoria?
Vi chiedo ciò perchè ho avuto dei problemi di pronuncia con alcune parole e 
vorrei migliorarla (ad esempio "since" la avrei sempre detta come "sains"; 
per questo ho iniziato la leggere la trascrizione fonetica della parola sul 
dizionario.
Avete degli altri consigli in merito oltre che a guardare film e tg in 
lingua inglese?
Grazie
Francesco 

 Avevo bisogno di un consiglio:
Sorry.
Avrei.... 

 Ci sono delle regole valide
No, lo dicono anche i madrelingua,
l'inglese ha una pronuncia random
solo esercitandoti puoi acquisire un certo orecchio ma le regole sono molte
e piene di eccezioni. 

l'inglese ha una pronuncia random
...
La pronuncia inglese non e` random (although it might seem
that way to learners). It is certainly irregular, because
of the historical influences of other languages (both Germanic 
(Angles, Saxons, Danes, Norse) and Romance, esp. French after 1066). 
Almost all English words were pronounced the way they were written
at some stage in history.
But perhaps you didn't mean "random" in the strict sense.
(or perhaps "random" has a different connotation in Italian?)
By the way, does anyone use IPA or ASCII IPA symbols here?
That is certainly a help in explaining pronunication.
R.

 come si può imparare la pronuncia della parole?
A forza di sentirla, la impari.
:-)
Ciao,
Enrico il Pentolaio.
-- 
I chitarristi passano metà della propria vita ad accordare la chitarra e 
l'altra metà a suonarla scordata.


Ok.
Vuol dire che continuerò a vedere film e tg.
Grazie mille

 Vuol dire che continuerò a vedere film e tg.
That's the spirit!


 
No, ma bisogna controllare  per ogni parola che la pronuncia non sia 
un'eccezione. Comunque io comincerei con l'imparare i fonemi:
http://www.soundsofenglish.org/pronunciation/sounds.htm
http://www.antimoon.com/how/pronunc-soundsipa.htm
Fa comodo avere un buon vocabolario che mostra o scandisce anche la 
pronuncia. Questo per esempio: 
http://wordweb.info/free/

 l'altra metą a suonarla scordata.
Sono tremendamente OT, ma sai dirmi chi ha pronunciato questa frase?
La vorrei passare ad una persona che conosco e che suona la chitarra, so
che... ehm... *l'apprezzerebbe* ;-)
Grazie!
Antonio
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

 that way to learners)
Bill Bryton stated so in his "mother tongue" and he is a mother tongue 
ENGLISH.
the truth is in many words pronunciation IS random (there are many 
pronunciation for ONE single word
without any particular reason for that), and of course pronunciation rules 
are so many, when followed, that one could easily assume random even words 
that try to follow them. 

 Grazie!
In realtà in origine lo si diceva dei liutisti, per i quali tenere 
accordate una trentina di corde di budello era effettivamente 
un'impresa. Poi qualcuno (in genere si dice Segovia), per fare il 
simpatico con qualche giornalista dotato di scarsa memoria storica, ha 
pensato bene di adattarla alla chitarra.

 Sono tremendamente OT, ma sai dirmi chi ha pronunciato questa frase?
Mi sa che ti conviene prendere per buono ciņ che dice Faith. Io l'ho 
trovata nel forum di Edumus.
Ciao,
Enrico il Pentolaio.
-- 


 un'impresa.
That's nothing.
We pianists are the one in serious trouble: our pianos have more or less 
230 chords!
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message
news:484969c6$0$30408$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

I for one have never seen any value in IPA symbols, and have never used them
in the study of any language. I think they are useful in learning about
languages, but not in learning languages. Emphasis should be on listening
and repetition, not on theorizing from the written word how a spoken word is
pronounced.  If you want to improve your pronunciation, you have to listen
to and imitate a native speaker. If you have no intention of ever speaking a
language with a live person, and are learning in total isolation, then IPA
symbols may have a purpose.
The on-line Oxford English Dictionary uses its own system of describing
pronunciation (which is not at all related to the IPA), in those cases where
it feels necessary to do so, but in many cases it offers no pronunciation
guide at all.
If you have doubt about the pronunciation of a word, why not consult an
on-line dictionary which provides audio for the word in question? Wouldn't
that make more sense than relying on a written description?
Joe from Massachusetts

 pronuncia. Questo per esempio: 
http://wordweb.info/free/
Grazie mille per i links
Francesco 

, 
||
http://www.esistampi.it/index.php||
 says...

"Random" means that there is no relationship between the 
spelling and the pronunciation. This may be true of Chinese
which uses pictographs (though I'm not certain of this). 
But any discussion of this turns on agreeing on the definition 
of "random", even if Bryson did say it. 
R.

In article <2ut2k.1820$js1....@newsfe24.lga>, 
josc...@cox.net
 says...

Yes, certainly, if you had access to a sound recording for any 
word you were uncertain of, you wouldn't need symbols. 
R.

R.
Oh, I meant to add that ascii IPA is used a lot on the
alt.usage.english newsgroup to indicate individual or
regional pronunciations. For example, you would probably
say (in IPA) /dag/ for "dog", whereas I say /dA.g/
A sound dictionary might include English and American 
pronunciations, but that would not help if I wanted to 
know if you said /kar/ for "car", or /ka:/ as I do.
It's true you could say that we shared a non-rhotic 
accent, but very few such variations have actual names.
Maybe it's just not of such interest on this newsgroup.
R.

 word you were uncertain of, you wouldn't need symbols. 
That's not true at all. There is extensive scientific literature that 
suggests the opposite.
Kiuhnm

, 
kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it
 says...

Well, maybe. I was trying to be accomodating.
Frankly, I love symbols!
R.

 Frankly, I love symbols!
Sometimes one's mind tosses a coin to decide which sound one heard.
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message
news:484bb0cb$0$26819$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...

Why not cite a few for our enlightenment?
Joe from Massachusetts

 Why not cite a few for our enlightenment?
Search for "categorical perception".
In particular, see (ocr, cut and paste):
Bohn, O. S., & Flege, J . E. (1990) . Interlingual identification and 
the role of foreign language experience in L2 vowel perception. Applied 
Linguistics, I I, 303-328.
Bond. Z. & Moore. T. (1994 ). A note on the acoustic-phonetic 
characteristics of inadvertently clear speech. Speech Communication, 14, 
325-338.
Bolt . S. (1993). Speech intelligibility and bilingualism: The effects 
of age on acquisition.
Unpublished Ph.D thesis. University of Illinois. Champaigne-Urbana.
Burnham, D., Earns haw, L., & Quinn , M. ( 1987). The development of the 
categorical identification of speech. In B. McKen zie & R. Day (Eds. ), 
Perceptual development in early infancy: Problems and issues. Hillsda 
le, NJ : Erlbaum.
Flege, J . E. (1989) . Chinese subjects' perception of the word-final 
English It/-/dl contrast:
Performance before and after training. Journal of the Acoustical society 
of America, 86, 1684- 1697.
Flege, J . E, & Bchn, O. S. (1989) . The perception of English vowels by 
native Spanish speakers . Journ al of the A coustical Society ofAmerica. 
85. S85(A).
Flege, J . E., & Eefting, W. (1986) . Linguist ic and developmental 
effects on the production and perception of stop consonants. Phonetica, 
43, 155- 171.
Flege, J . E. , & Hillen brand , 1. ( 1985). Differential use of 
temporal cues to the s/z contrast by native and non-native speakers of 
English . Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 79. 508-517.
Flege, J . E., & Schmidt, A. (in press) . Native speakers of Spanish 
show rate-dependent processing of English stop consonants . Phonetica, 52.
Flege, J . E., & Wang, C. ( 1990). Native-language phonotactic 
constraints affect how well Chinese subjects perceive the word-final 
English /t/-/d/ contrast. Journal of Phonetics. 17.299-315.
Gottfried . T. , & Bedd or, P. (1988). Perception of temporal and 
spectral information in French vowels. Language and Speech. 31. 57-7 5.
Greene, B., Pisoni, D., & Gradman, H. (1985) . Perception of synthetic 
speech by nonnative speakers of English . Research on Speech Perception 
(Indiana University , Department of Psychology ), I 1,419-428.
Grier , J . (1971) . Non parametric indexes for sensitivity and bias: 
Computing formulae. Psy chological Bulletin, 75. 424-429.
Hsia, S. ( 1992). Developmental knowledge of inter- and intraword 
boundaries: Evidence from American and Mandarin Chinese speaking 
beginning readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13. 341-372.
Jamieson , D., & Mor osan , D. (1986) . Training non-native speech 
contrasts in adults: Acquisition of the English /Th/-/th/ contrast by 
francophones . Perception and Psychophysics, 40. 205-21 5.
(1989) . Training new, nonnative speech contrasts: A comparison of the 
prototype and perceptual fading techniques. Canadian Journal of 
Psychology, 43, 88-96.
Kirk , R. ( 1968). Experiment al design: Procedures for the behavioral 
sciences . Belmont , CA: Brook s/ Cole.
Lively, S., Pisoni, D. , & Logan, 1. ( 1992) . Some effects of training 
Japanese listeners to identify English /r/ and /l/. In Y. Tohkura, E. 
vauklous-Bateso n, & Y. Sagisa ka (Eds.) , Speech perception. production 
and linguistic structure. Tok yo; Ohmsa .
Lively, S., Yamada, R. , Tohkura, Y. , & Yamada , T. (1994). Training 
Japanese listeners 10
identify English I rl and I II , III. long-term retention of new 
phonetic ca tegor ies.
Journal ofthe A coustical Society of America, 96, 2076-2087.
Logan, J ., lively, S., Pisoni , D. (1991 ). Training Japanese listeners 
to ident ify English I rl
and 11/: A fir st report . Jo urnal of the A coustical Society of A 
merica, 89, 874-886.
Mack, M. (1988) . Sentence processing by non-native speakers of English: 
Evidence from the
percept ion of nat ur al and computer-generated anoma lous l 2 
sentences. Journal of
Neurolinguistics. 3. 293-3 16.
(1989) . Consonant and vowel percept ion and production: Early 
English-French bilinguals
and English monolinguals . Perception and Psychophysics. 46, 187-200.
Mack, 1\1., Ti erney, J ., & Boyle, M. (1990) . Th e int elligibi lity 
of natural and LPC-vocoded
word s and sentences presented to native and non-native spea kers of 
English. Techn ical
Report 869. Massachu sett s Institu te of Technology, Lin coln laborator 
y, Boston , MA.
McAllister, R. (1990) . Perceptual foreign accent: L2 user's 
comprehension ability. In J.
l eath er & A. James (Bds. ), New Sounds 90. Proceedings of the 1990 
Amsterdam
Symposium on the Acquisition of Second-language Speech (pp. 2 16-2 28). 
Univers ity
of Amsterdam, Departm ent of English .
Mor osan, D., & Jamieson , D. (1989) . Evaluat ion of a techniqu e for 
training new speech contrasts : Generalization across voices. but not 
word-position or task. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 501-5 11.
Nabelek, A., & Donahu e, A. (1984). Perception of consonants in 
reverberati on by native and
non-nati ve listeners. Journa l of the Acoust ical Society of America. 
75, 632-634.
Oyama , S. (1978). The sensitive period and comprehension of speech. 
Working Papers in
Bi-lingualism , 16, 1-17 .
Pisan i. D. , Logan, 1., & Lively. S. (1993). Perceptual learn ing of 
nonna tive speech contrasts:
Implication s for theori es of speech production. In H. Nusbaum & J . 
Goodman (Eds.),
The transition from speech sounds 10spoken words: The development of 
speech perception.
Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
Pisoni , D.• Nusbaum, H.• & Greene, B. (1985). Perception of synthetic 
speech generated by
rule. Proceedings of the IEEE. 73. 1665-1 676.
Polk a, L. (1989) . The role of experience in speech perception: 
Evidence f rom cross-language
studies with adults. Unpublished Ph .D. dissert ation . University of 
South Florida,
Tampa .
(1991). Cross- language speech perception in adults: Phonemic, phonetic, 
and acoustic contributions.
Journal ofthe Acoustical Society ofAmerica, 89, 2% 1-2977.
(1992). Characte rizing the influence of native language experience on 
ad ult speech perception.
Perception and Psychophysics, 52. 37-52.
Posner, M., & Keele, S. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. 
Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 77, 353- 363.
Pru itt, 1. , Stran ge, W., Polk a, L.. & Aquilar , M. (1990). Effects 
of category knowledge and
syllable tr uncat ion during audito ry tra ining on American's 
discriminat ion of Hindi
retrofl ex-dental cont rast. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 
America. 87, S72(A).
Strange, W. (1992). Learn ing non-native phoneme cont rasts: Interaction 
s amon g subject,
stimulus. and task variables. In Y. Tohkura , E. Vatlkiotis-Bat eson , & 
Y. Sagisa ka
(Ed s.), Speech perception. production and linguistic struc ture. Tokyo, 
Japan: Ohmsa.
(1994). Speech perception by second language learners. Journal of (he A 
coustical Society of
America. 95, 2998(A).
Strange, W., & Dittman. S. (1984). Effects of discrimination training on 
the perception of
/ r/-/I! by Japanese adults learning English. Perception and 
Psychophysics, 36, 131145.
Strange, W., Polka, L. . & Aquil ar, M. (1989). Effects of auditory and 
phonetic train ing on
Americans' discrimination of Hindi retroflex-dental contras ts. Journal 
of the Acoustical
Society of America, 86, (Supp!. I) , SIO I(A).
Tees, R., & Werker , J . (1984). Perceptual flexibility: Maint enance or 
recovery of the ability to
discrimin ate nonnative speech sounds. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 
38, 579-5 90.
Werker, J ., & Logan, J . (1985). Cross-language evidence for three 
factors in speech perception.
Perception and Psychophysics, 37, 35-44.
Werker, 1. . & Tees. R. (1984). Cross-language speech perception : 
Evidence for perceptual
reorganization in the first year of life. Infa nt Behavior and 
Development, 7, 49-63.
Williams, L. (1979). The modifi cation of speech percept ion and pro 
duction in secondlanguage
learn ing. Perception and Psychophysics, 26, 95-104 .
(1980) . Phonetic variation as a function of second-language learning. 
In G. Yeni-Komshian,
J . Kavanagh. & C. Ferguson (Ed s. ), Child phonology: Volume 2. 
Perception (pp . 185215).
New York : Academic.
Yamad a, R., & Tohkura, Y. (1992). Perception of American English I rl 
and I II by native
speakers of Japan ese. In E. Tohkura, E. Vatikiotis-Bateson , & Y. 
Sagisaka (Eds.),
Speech perception, production , and linguistic structure (pp. 155- 174). 
Tok yo: Ohmsa.
Kiuhnm


None of this has anything to do with spoken language.
I use OCR almost every day to convert downloaded image files into searchable
text documents. Fonts are the heart of OCR. You can be an expert in OCR, and
write software to convert image files containing foreign language text
without knowing any foreign language. A font is a font, and has nothing to
do with language.
Joe from Massachusetts


Google has "digitized" a number of books, all of which are image files, not
text files. In some cases they can be converted to searchable text files
using OCR, but generally Google books are of such poor quality that they
serve no useful purpose.
Joe from Massachusetts

 such poor quality that they serve no useful purpose.
How can you say that? There are some useful 19th C Italian and French 
grammars on there ...
Antonio

 Kiuhnm
Gennaro 

 wrote in message
news:Xns9AB8E64891A0F...@69.16.176.253...

If you download a digitized Google book, you get a "pdf" image file which is
not text searchable, and which is of such poor quality that it cannot
readily be converted to a text-searchable document, because of the poor
resolution that Google uses to scan books at very high speed. This is
especially important for language-related files. I have many grammars, etc.
in true pdf format, all of which contain searchable text. I can use the
Adobe Reader to search all of them for a particular item of interest, such
as "modal", "tag", "subjunctive", etc. when I am looking for information
Some of these files were originally in pdf image format, but because the
scanning resolution was high enough, I was able to convert them to
text-searchable files.
Most Project Gutenberg books are in plain text (not pdf) format, but can
easily be converted to pdf to facilitate searching.
What would you rather have - a full-text version of "The Wind in the
Willows" from Project Gutenberg, or the Google version, a pdf image file
which is an atrocity?
Joe from Massachusetts

 None of this has anything to do with spoken language.
Suit yourself. Next time I will simply ignore similar requests of yours.
Kiuhnm

 people with good ear perceive as an "A" might in fact be a "G#"?
Good example. It shows how much you understood of what we were talking 
about: nothing.
Kiuhnm

 Kiuhnm
Gennaro 

"Gennaro" <MC7...@MCLINK.IT.HELL> wrote in message
news:g2ll2s$2cul$1...@newsreader1.mclink.it...

If in Italy a teacher asks a student to pronounce a phrase in a foreign
language, is it acceptable to hold up a sign with the phrase transcribed
Into IPA symbols, or must the student actually speak the phrase aloud? Is it
enough to say "I know how it ought to be pronounced, but I am not capable of
pronouncing it?" Isn't that a contradiction?
I don't see how anyone can sing the praises of IPA symbols if that person is
incapable of producing the sounds that those symbols approximate. The
symbols are an approximation of the sound, and not vice-versa, otherwise we
would not be having this discussion.
Since the symbols are only an approximate guide to the actual sound, they
are not going to replace listening to and duplicating the speech of native
speakers of a language.
As I have said before, it has never been suggested to me in any language
course that learning the IPA symbols would be of any benefit whatsoever. It
has always been emphasized that ideally the first steps in learning should
be listening and repeating, before ever reading or writing anything in the
language.
If I were foolish enough to try to learn a language without ever hearing it,
I might be tempted to learn the IPA symbols.
As I have also said before, I once knew a professor in Kansas who taught
Russian at a University, and when a Russian woman whom he met at a social
function started to speak to him in Russian, he cut her off with "I teach
Russian, I don't speak it".
I'll bet he knew the IPA symbols.
Joe from Massachusetts

neither what I wrote nor what those papers are about, I'm losing my time.
You're quite correct, Kiuhnm. It's obvious to me that
your references were valid. It's also obvious that not
all participants are engaging honestly with the argument, 
either from lack of will or ability.
There's little future for such threads.
R.
 

 There's little future for such threads.
As my two cents, I learned English as a baby soley by reading symbols and 
I'm proud to say that my English pronunciation is superb!

 wrote in message
news:xs6dnfaH4tSUVdPV...@comcast.com...

Are you saying that you learned to read and speak English via IPA symbols
before you heard any spoken English?!!
Joe from Massachusetts

 before you heard any spoken English?!!
Well, I did have recordings of the sounds the symbols represented. Was that 
cheating, ya think? 

 wrote in message
news:-PWdnSF2n5F-atPV...@comcast.com...

From what you are saying, you read from text which consisted only of IPA
symbols (no actual English words), and from this you learned English?
Joe from Massachusetts

 symbols (no actual English words), and from this you learned English?
OK, I thought that the tongue-in-cheekitude of my remarks would belay any 
explanation, but alas not, so I have to confess. I've never taken the time 
to learn about IPA, except that made by Pyramid Breweries and other such 
establishments. 

 wrote in message
news:484e93ac$0$12973$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

The FSI (Foreign Service Institute) language courses were developed by the
US State Department for the training of American diplomats prior to posting
overseas.
Although these courses are in the public domain, some companies (such as
Platiquemos) still sell these courses, and people who don't know how to
access the free courses still pay for them.
The following are excerpts from the Introduction to the Student Text which
accompanies the FSI German Basic Course (for English speakers):
«The emphasis in instruction is everywhere on speech, and an indispensable
component of the learning process is the voice of a tutor, or instructor,
whose native language is German.
On no account should the student attempt to use these
materials without either a native instructor or recordings of a native
instructor's voice.
The method of instruction incorporates guided
imitation, repetition, memorization, pattern practice, and conversation.»
The quote above is from pages iv and v of the manual.
«The spelling of a language only symbolizes to the native speaker the sounds
which he already knows. You will learn these sounds directly from your
instructor; the spelling will serve as an aid to listening. No spelling
system adequately represents the sounds of the spoken language, and no
attempt will be made at this point to outline exactly what sounds are
represented by what symbols of the German spelling system.»
This quote is from page 6 of the manual.
If you browse through the manual, you will see that there are no lPA
symbols, and no attempts at phonetic transcription - only the German words
and their English equivalents.
http://fsi-language-courses.com/Courses/German/Basic/Volume%201/FSI%20-%20German%20Basic%20Course%20-%20Volume%201%20-%20Student%20Text.pdf
This manual is, unfortunately, a pdf image file, but because of the
resolution with which it was scanned, it can be converted to a
text-searchable pdf file (more or less).
If a person is studying a language only in order to use it to assist in
research, and has no intention of learning the spoken language, then the
warnings in this manual don't apply, and IPA symbols might have some
utility, since the student wouldn't be using this or any audio-based course.
If a person wants to learn the spoken language, he must depend
on a native speaker from the outset, or he will be in danger of developing
an accent which is unique to him and him alone.
There are very few language students in the US who have the luxury of a
native speaker to guide them, except at the University level, so the need
for emphasis on recorded materials is greater in the Elementary and
High Schools. However, little emphasis is placed on recorded materials
in most of these schools.
There are many free on-line audio guides to English pronunciation, but my
guess is that any serious student of English will have purchased a
dictionary on CD or DVD which includes pronunciation for dictionary entries.
For British English:
http://www.sapere.it/gr/DictionarySearchServlet?DS_action=ForeignSearch&DS_userInput=antique&DS_resType=20&x=25&y=10
For American English:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=antique
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Antique
http://www.bartleby.com/61/81/A0348100.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Antique&r=66
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/antique
Joe from Massachusetts

 symbols before you heard any spoken English?!!
I learned a smattering of English despite being
subjected to ITA (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1523708.stm
).
That's probably a good part of the reason I've never
got on well with the Institue of Practitioners in
Advertising.
Antonio

In article <Tow3k.1$F9...@newsfe18.lga>, 
josc...@cox.net
 says...

Joe, I think you've misunderstood my recommendations for IPA.
I wasn't saying that it was useful generally for anybody learning
English. I was referring to this newsgroup, where people often discuss
pronunciation using their own ideosyncratic system.
An example from another thread is the pronunciation of "Julius Caesar"
(No offence meant to the author, but the system doesn't work).
It's all very well to write: Julius Caesar is pronounced as
"joo-lee-us see-zarr" (or whatever), but then the question is
how do you pronounce "joo-lee-us see-zarr"?
The main advantage of IPA is that each sound has only one symbol, 
and each symbol represents only one sound.
Home made on-the-fly pronunciation descriptions don't have this
characteristic, and are usually ambiguous.
I only ever had the context of representating pronunciation in this
(and other) newsgroups and in writing in mind. If you are claming that
symbols are entirely useless as a tool (one only) in the learning of
language, then this newsgroup should be a waste of time because it
uses only symbols.
Raymot

In article <IXD3k.258$qa5...@newsfe13.lga>, 
josc...@cox.net
 says...

This may be true, and the links very useful, but your antipathy
towards IPA has led you to an incorrect view of the point I was
trying to make (See my previous reply to you).
R.

 establishments.
That's quite a wise thing to do, although I must admit that IPA
is rarely my first choice of beer... 

 R.
bye
Gennaro 

 majority of students.
How do you pronounce 'imitaing'? Joking aside, I just wanted to remind you
to write 'invaluable' rather than 'unvaluable' in future such situations.

 situations. 
Seconded.
"unvaluable" isn't just wrong, it's ambiguous (which is worse). Did it mean 
invaluable (having a great deal of value) or "valueless" (having little to 
no value). I had to read it a few times to make up my mind :-)
Antonio

Joseph Curtin wrote:
[...]
Your and other's replies to my post is an example of why everyone should 
study Mathematics before entering into any kind of discussion.
Because details *matter*.
You, Gennaro and maybe others, seem to be unable to properly negate a 
sentence. That's one of the thing you learn in Logic.
Kiuhnm

 scientific literature at random and out of context.
And I find it irritating when ignorant people say that quoted scientific 
papers are random and out of context when it's clear that they didn't 
even try to read them.
Those papers are so random that they're all related to categorical 
perception and explain why symbols are necessary to (try to) overcome 
one's categorical representation. Alternatively, you need someone with 
the right categorical representation who listens to you and points out 
your mistakes. As I said, "sound recordings" are not enough.
But you know everything already and I'm just an ignorant little student, 
so please don't listen to me and don't read any of those papers. They're 
just garbage randomly picked up around the net...
Kiuhnm

 Your and other's replies to my post is an example of why everyone should 
are
Kiuhnm


things
Kiuhnm

 Kiuhnm
bye
Gennaro
[a] I thought that, as a mathematician, you were the one paying attention
to details.... 

 than 'unvaluable' in future such situations.
Thanks for the correction!
I think I'll always keep confusing un- and in-
Gennaro

 Kiuhnm
Gennaro 


Yes, you're right.
Kiuhnm

 speakers and imitate them.
Again, I DIDN'T reply to Joseph Curtin if not when he replied to me 
(showing that he didn't understand what I wrote).
That's what I said, in a nutshell:
1) recorded audio is useful but not enough;
2) symbols are useful but not enough;
3) if you really have to choose between symbols and recorded audio, go 
for recorded audio without hesitation;
4) corrections(*) are necessary to form new categorical representations 
*efficiently*;
5) if corrections are not available, symbols may (and should) be relied 
on instead.
(*) With "correction" I mean any input which is dependent on one's output.
Kiuhnm

 which uses pictographs (though I'm not certain of this).
No, that isn't true even for Chinese. More than the the 90% of Chinese
characters indicates the pronunciation. It is true, however, that this
sound indication is highly irregular, and often based on the
pronunciation which was current many centuries ago.
BTW, the kind of writing system you are describing would not be called
"random", but rather "ideographic". However, experts agree that, as
far as we know, no such writing system ever existed in the world. Even
the Chinese characters, the Egyptian hieroglyphs, the Mayan glyphs and
the Babilonian cuneiform did indicate the sound of the vast majority
of words.
A "random" writing system would be one where words do not have a
standard "spelling", and in which the combination of signs used to
write a word is decided on-the-fly based only on its actual sound and,
consequently, reading can only be achieved by pronouncing out the
words aloud. In other terms, that would a *totally* phonetic writing
system (such as, e.g., the ancient Sanskrit script), which is the
exact opposite of what English spelling is supposed to be.
--
Cingar

only; 
Again, I never suggested this. My first mention of IPA was
an enquiry about whether anyone on this newsgroup used it,
and I suggested it was a good idea. I have never said that
this is how English should be learnt.
R.

, 
kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it
 says...

Unfortunately, it's difficult for most people to learn maths,
English, logic (and IPA) at the same time, which is possibly
the reason for the hostility engendered in this thread.
Probabily it's unreasonable to expect most people to learn
logic at all (anche se si parla inglese perfettamente).
R.

 the reason for the hostility engendered in this thread.
Well, you just need the first ten pages of some introductory logic book 
where you learn that "not white" doesn't mean "black". You also learn 
that "you also need symbols" doesn't mean that "symbols are all you'll 
ever need".
But after all, open minded people don't ask for more details by writing
"Why not cite a few for our enlightenment?"
My English is not good enough to be sure, but the use of "enlightenment" 
seems slightly mocking to me.
Kiuhnm

 seems slightly mocking to me.
The use of enlightenment is not necessarily mocking, but in borderline cases 
the perception of mocking typically has as much to do with the insecurity of 
the recipient as the intention of the speaker. 


Although certainly not intended as ideographic (that would be impossible)
when first developed, Chinese characters in effect became ideographic, and
remain so, to a certain extent, even today.
Where Chinese dialects are concerned, it is true that each character stands
for a separate sound, which in the vast majority of cases has meaning even
when standing alone, but the sound that the character represents is
different for speakers of different dialects. The same character  stands for
different sounds in different dialects, such as Beijing (Mandarin) or
Guangzhou (Cantonese).
"People who can understand only either Mandarin or Cantonese can communicate
with each other by writing because they use the same written characters with
a few exceptions."
http://khuang.com/chinese/dif.htm
So, the characters don't really stand for separate sounds, but for separate
ideas. The characters must have stood for sounds in a particular dialect
when they were first developed, but as the Empire of China grew, the written
language was the only way for the government to communicate with the peoples
who spoke many variants of Chinese, and the idea behind the character became
predominant over the sound that a character represented to the original
developers of the characters.
There must have been a cadre of linguists who went from the corners of the
Empire to Beijing and studied Mandarin and the written language, and then
returned to their own parts of China, and taught the characters, but not the
spoken language that the characters originated from, to local scholars and
students. For these new students, the sound behind a character was a sound
in their local dialect, not in the original dialect. Those scholars and
students could then write to other scholars and students in other parts of
China, without knowing any of the other dialects. How else can you explain
people speaking mutually unintelligible languages being able to read the
same written materials?
However, thanks to pin-yin, the IPA for the Chinese, Mandarin is taught all
over China, and some have even suggested that pin-yin replace characters
altogether.
Padania will speak Calabrese before that happens.  :>)
Joe from Massachusetts

 wrote in message
news:spGdnShETNesYNPV...@comcast.com...

But only Guinness is good for you.
Joe from Massachusetts

 Kiuhnm
Gennaro 

 Kiuhnm
bye
Gennaro
[1] For those interested, these are the references from
Meador, D., Factors affecting the recognition of words in a second
language, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3 (1), 2000, 55-67

seems slightly mocking to me.
Yes, it sounds that way to me as well. But it's easy to misunderstand
the tone of a post on newsgroups. Sometimes I feel as if I should use
more smileys so people don't get offended.:) 
Raymot

 the recipient as the intention of the speaker. 
Ok, then it was mocking.
Kiuhnm

 Feedback?
Yes.
Kiuhnm

 Ok, then it was mocking.
I honestly don't know if it was. Joe thought I was serious in another post 
in this thread that was tongue-in-cheek. He may very well have been 
literally interested in what scientific literature could possibly support 
the view that symbols were a necessity in learning pronunciation.
I can say for certain though, that your posting of a cut-and-pasted 
bibliography was dismissive. You were challenged to support an off-the-wall 
comment, not in a particularly threatening way, I might add, and you 
dismissed it with the obfuscation of a long list of titles of articles. I 
can say that for myself, I might have entertained a well-thought explanation 
of why you believed that representative symbols were a necessity for 
learning pronunciation. I'd listen to it even though I've learned 
pronunciation by ear and my accent has fooled some native speakers, albeit 
not for long. Don't forget that I've heard your IPA-assisted pronunciation. 
But I would have entertained a real supportive argument, instead of an 
evasive critique of logic, if you really did believe it was untrue to say 
"you wouldn't need symbols."
In a later response to Gennaro you list 5 things that described (in a 
nutshell) what you had said. I would have no disagreement with those 5 
items, nor did Gennaro, but I would disagree, in an assessment of your 
logic, that it is what you had previously said.
You know, I wouldn't nail you like this if, in response to a mild challenge, 
you would rise above making snide personal attacks on people and arrogant 
allusions that if they understood logic as well as you did, then they'd fall 
prostrate in line with your thinking. I also wouldn't do it if your 
assertions were right. 

 required."
Your reasoning is flawed. As I said, I made some reasonable assumptions.
(p(x)=true <=> x in {a,b})) ->
((p(x)=true ^ x<>a) -> p(x) = b).
As you can see, x<>a -> x=b because we are under particular assumptions.
What you say is that x<>a only means that x<>a, but that kind of 
reasoning is wrong both in logic and in English.
For instance, in math books you can find things like:
"v is a characteristic vector. But that means that p is true".
It's clear that "v is a characteristic vector" only means that v is a 
characteristic vector, but the author is clearly saying that that piece 
of information, together with all the other assumptions, means that p is 
true.
The same way, if one tells me that whenever he has any doubt about the 
pronunciation of a word he may just listen to the recorded pronunciation 
of the word and doesn't need symbols, I immediately assume that he 
doesn't have a teacher nor other native speakers around, at least in 
that particular moment. I also assume that he's been learning 
pronunciation and that he doesn't have an accurate cat. rep. of the 
sounds of English.
These are all reasonable assumptions to me.
Rather than trying to "nail" me down (as you like to say) with flawed 
reasoning, you should have asked me what my assumptions were.
[...]
The last part of your post if funny, because you like so much to state 
what you *think* you've just done to others, when it's really only a 
delusion of yours.
Change attitude or I'll start ignoring you altogether. But after all, a 
leopard cannot change its spots.
Kiuhnm

 [...]
No, sorry, this is pure fantasy...
Something similar happened for Japan, however.
BTW, it is no coincidence that most kanji's read "wu" in Mandarin and
"ng" in Cantonese are read "go" in the Japanese *on* reading. That's
how Japanese magled the Ancient Chinese sound "ngwo".
--
Cingar

 "Not white" doesn't mean "black,"
Just a little note. If we're dealing with b/w images, then "not white" 
clearly means "black". So what I am criticizing is just the use of 
unreasonable assumptions. It's (probably) true that there isn't an 
algorithm that tells us whether or not an assumption is reasonable, but 
there would be no problems whatsoever if people asked for more 
information before disdaining other's claims. Scornful remarks don't 
help either and are usually answered with equally disdainful remarks.
Kiuhnm


Black and white images are perceived in shades of gray. So, you're jumping 
to a false assumption again to assume that "not white" _clearly_ means 
"black." 

 leopard cannot change its spots.
To me it's funny that you mention a delusion. You admit to making
assumptions. The delusion is that you don't admit to them being wrong. And
the real delusion is that you actually think you can fool readers here into
not recognizing your mistakes, or your childish behavior when those mistakes
are challenged.

 Kiuhnm
Gennaro
ps:
Guy: <<Hey, Kiuhnm, you know quite a lot about set theory. I'm
new to the subject, could you suggest me something to read?>>
Kiuhnm: <<Here's my advice: read "counterexamples in
Topology"; I've never read it, but it's a widely quoted book.
Other than that, here's for you a never ending list of all books
ever published on set theory, pick up the best yourself!


Tony the Ice Man wrote:
[...]
Ok, let's cut the crap.
The original sentence is:
"if you had access to a sound recording for any word you were uncertain 
of, you wouldn't need symbols."
A = you have access to a sound recording for any word you are uncertain 
of. (*)
B = you don't need symbols.
(*) I assume that Raymot was talking of sound recordings containing the 
pronunciation of the words and nothing else.
What the sentence claims is that A->B. And that is clearly wrong.
Prove me wrong. I'm curious.
Kiuhnm

 Black and white images are perceived in shades of gray.
Here you're right. I was thinking of 1-bit images but I used the wrong term.
Kiuhnm

 Kiuhnm
Gennaro 

 ((p(x)=true ^ x<>a) -> p(x) = b).
You're so obsessed with symbols that you need them to express things
for which plain English would be more than enough :-)
If you don't manage to express yourself any longer you risk to become
unable to communicate with pepole around you.
[...]
Gennaro 

 are completely obscure to me.
Good. Next time don't ask and do your homework.
Kiuhnm


You need to make a coherent argument that you are right before you can ask 
someone to prove you wrong. And believe it or not, citing If/Then logic is 
inadequate to substantiate an argument. You'd have had more solid footing to 
stand on if you argued that because the statement did not specify that you 
also need a device to play the sound recordings, the statement is clearly 
wrong. We are talking about communication using simple English words, not a 
mathematical abstraction in the philosophy of logic.
It is obvious and well accepted (not clearly untrue at all) that repeatedly 
hearing a word spoken is adequate enough to learn how to pronounce it, and 
that you do not need symbols to learn pronunciation (If it were inadequate, 
you wouldn't be able to ever learn how to pronunce the sounds represented by 
the symbols). That is how almost everyone learns to say words, even in their 
native language. I would wager that more than 99% of people who have reached 
an intermediate level of English comprehension would have read the statement 
and understood its meaning. You can cite A's and B's and jargon and write 
papers about it and carefully avoid the fact that a plethora of assumptions 
are required that must pass the test of the real world for such academic 
abstractions to be even remotely useful. But the fact remains that you have 
either failed the test of understanding a simple, and clear sentence, or you 
were being sloppy and now have decided to dig your heels in and play the 
carper. 

 term.
I learned a long time ago that the way sciences could be used to abstract 
our life experience was very useful, but that they were only tools and very 
limited. They offer very thin slices of the complex world and as a result 
they can mislead as well as inform if they're applied in an intuitive 
vacuum. For example, if you said to me "If we're dealing with 1-bit images, 
then "not white" clearly means "black", I could say that statement is not 
true at all. I could misapply logic in such a way that I purposely lost 
understanding of the communication.
For example, I could state that 1-bit images are a misnomer. They don't 
exist.  There is no image but rather there is a file format that follows a 
convention which identifies an on or off state that we could associate with 
white or black, but the magnetic signature representing these states is not 
in itself white or black. In fact, even if we look at a manifestation of 
this file in visual form on a monitor we see a representation of two states 
that are neither white nor black, although they may approach the 
definitions. There is enough variation in display media to differentiate 
between the emissions of, for example, adjacent LEDs to identify a variety 
of intensities of light so that there are numerous choices beyond white or 
black. Even if we examine the file itself, it doesn't exist in an absolute 
state of on or off but is read as voltage levels and a range of those 
voltage levels are assigned as either 0 or 1 based on predetermined cutoff 
criteria. I could say all this or instead I could say, "yes, it's clear to 
me what you mean when you say that with 1-bit images, not white clearly 
means black." 

 carper. 
Wrong again. The fact is that I've been right all the time and you've 
finally realized it but cannot admit it.
Since you're evidently quite ignorant in logic, I'll say it in simple terms.
Raymot:
Yes, certainly, if you had access to a sound recording for any
word you were uncertain of, you wouldn't need symbols.
Kiuhnm:
That's not true at all. There is extensive scientific literature that 
suggests the opposite.
Let's say some Italians have a doubt about the word "call" and listen to 
the recording. Many would come up with 'coll'. And that's wrong. That's 
not the right pronunciation.
Similarly, they would listen to the recording of "ship" but understand 
"sheep", and so on.
I'm sure many people on this ng can confirm this.
As I said and showed, there is extensive literature that supports what I 
say.
Kiuhnm

 means black." 
Science is not as naive as you think.
For instance what's a matrix? A table of numbers or a function? And 
what's a set? Scientists introduced the concepts of isomorphisms and 
structure-preserving transformations long ago. Category Theory, a quite 
recent branch of mathematics, even expresses mathematically what it 
means for something to be "natural" and studies functions without 
relying on sets. Any scientist knows (or should know) that what matters 
is the structure. Knowing all this, your objections are (by any working 
scientist) simply ruled out because not relevant.
Kiuhnm

 may have a purpose.
Hi Joe,
I disagree with your opinion of phonetic transcription (whether IPA or
following another system is not very important, but there is little
reason not to use IPA anyway). Of course phonetic transcriptions
aren't enough and listening to native speakers is absolutely
necessary, but it is not sufficient, at least for adult Italians learning
English. For English native speakers learning Italian there is little
need for a separate phonetic transcription for words as Italian
orthography is very regular, so I'm not surprised you have never felt
the need for IPA symbols, but, as I said, for Italian speakers learning
English it is a completely different kettle of fish.
I am learning Polish at the moment and I feel little need for a phonetic
trascription, as 1) the orthography is regular and 2) Polish sounds are,
perhaps suprisingly, much simpler and closer to the Italian ones than
English sounds (I'm thinking particularly of vowels). 1) Means that one
always knows how a words ought to be read and 2) that when one hears
an unknown words one is (generally) able to indentify the sounds that
make it up. Neither 1 nor 2 are true for English and I can hardly imagine
an adult learning a good English pronounciation only by listening to native
speakers. Surely this must be the case for a few talented individuals, but
I don't think I've ever met any.
Lorenzo 

 If you have doubt about the pronunciation of a word, why not
consult > an on-line dictionary which provides audio for the word in
question?
[...]
Questo č anche utile, ma non č un sistema sempre disponibile. 
Peraltro, non č raro che anche ascoltando la pronuncia la si
percepisca e riproduca diversa da quel che č. Pensa per esempio alle
"a" brevi inglesi che gli italiani "sentono" e pronunciano come
fossero tutte "e" italiane.
Ben venga l'esempio audio, ma anche i simboli scritti possono aiutare
a capire meglio, IMHO.

, 
use_reply...@devils.com
 says...

Mi sembra che sia l'opinione della maggioranza. 
Cio` nonostante, l'uomo preistorico potevano communicare 
anche se non potessero scrivere.
-- 
Raymot
-------
Brisbane, Aus.

 Mi sembra che sia l'opinione della maggioranza.
Probabilmente č l'opinione della maggioranza dei lerner evoluti.
Un native speaker non sente il bisogno di vedere i simboli di
pronuncia, e se proprio vuole verificare come si pronuncia una parola
preferisce sistemi legati alla propria lingua, non universali ma piů
semplici (dal suo punto di vista), del tipo "ee"=i lunga. ;)

 anche se non potessero scrivere.
So can we.
Kiuhnm

 del tipo "ee"=i lunga. ;)
Impropriamente detta. Intendo, ovviamente, la i: di street.

 German words and their English equivalents.
[...]
Quel manuale, a quanto capisco, è rivolto ad americani che studiano
il tedesco.
Per saper pronunciare una parola tedesca o italiana non ce n'è
granché bisogno di esaminare i simboli fonetici, visto che la
corrispondenza tra grafia e pronuncia è abbastanza univoca, con
semplici regole e limitate eccezioni. Per es. il gruppo "gli" in
italiano è un'eccezione, perché si pronuncia diversamente in
"glicine" e in "glioma" da come si pronincia in "aglio" e in
"glielo". Ma le eccezioni in italiano si contano sulle punta delle
dita.
Ovvio che l'esatta intonazione, il suono, li puoi sentire solo dalla
viva voce dei native speaker, anche in italiano o in tedesco. Ma già
dalla grafia puoi capire molto. Per esempio, in italiano, una "a" è
sempre una "ah", mai una "ay", per intendersi. In inglese, invece, le
regole sono più complicate, molto più complicate, tanto da parere un
caos senza regole all'osservatore casuale!
Inoltre, anche per il learner che affronta l'inglese come seconda
lingua, i simboli fonetici non servono tanto a "imparare la lingua"
(che, come giustamente dici, si apprende meglio dalla viva voce di un
istruttore native speaker, ripetendo quel che si sente e facendosi
correggere dal native, con l'unico problema che un istruttore native
speaker non lo si ha sempre sotto mano), ma sono soprattutto un
ausilio per verificare la pronuncia di termini di cui si conosce la
forma scritta, o di cui non si è ben intesa la pronuncia pur avendola
sentita in qualche occasione (facevo l'esempio degli italiani che
fraintendono kæt con ket, pur avendo sentito la parola detta da
native speaker).

Lorents wrote:

Quanto hai scritto sintetizza abbastanza bene la situazione per i
learner italiani, secondo me. Jospeph ha ragione a voler sottolineare
l'importanza del "listen and imitate", ma l'uso di indicazioni
fonetiche scritte non è affatto in contrasto con questo, anzi è di
ausilio. Nessuno propone di basarsi sull'IPA ed evitare accuratamente
di ascoltare e imitare: sarebbe una follia. Si tratta invece di uno
strumento in più.
Un learner italiano, come hai detto, deve vedersela con
l'irregolarità della pronuncia inglese e con suoni fondamentalmente
diversi dai propri, e l'IPA (oppure altre rappresentazioni) dà una
mano a "incasellare" mentalmente quei suoni, oltre alla
considerazione pratica che l'esempio sonoro non sempre è disponibile
quando serve, basti pensare a chi è in viaggio con un vocabolarietto
in tasca!