Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Consiglio per iniziare

Il mio inglese è di livello scolastico, medio basso. Vorrei chiedervi
se secondo voi è opportuno iniziare con la lettura di un classico
della letteratura inglese di quelli che possono essere scaricati da
internet (progetto Gutenberg), da affiancare allo studio di una
grammatica inglese (Oxford Practice Grammar, John Eastwood, OUP,
com'è?).
Forse è un po' presto per leggere uno di questi libri in lingua
originale, ma potrei iniziare con molta pazienza e studiare una frase
alla volta :-) Ho pensato che un corso tradizionale di inglese
potrebbe annoiarmi, mentre un romanzo, il più facile da leggere,
potrebbe essere più utile. Quale mi suggerite?
Inoltre ho alcuni audiobooks, potrei studiare uno di questi titoli
affiancando lo studio del testo e della pronuncia?
Come è, invece, la pronuncia dei sintetizzatori vocali per pc, a parte
la voce elettronica? è consigliabile ascoltare uno di questi?
E' consigliabile leggere lo stesso libro sia in inglese che nella
traduzione italiana per velocizzare la comprensione per non ricorrere
troppo spesso al dizionario?
gli audiobooks con voce umana sono:
Arthur Conan Doyle, tutti i titoli prelevabili da qui:
http://www.gutenberg.net/audio/thelist_human
George Orwell
1984 (pronuncia americana)
Animal Farm
James Joyce
Ulysses
Questi sono prelevati da 
www.audiobooksforfree.com
 bassa qualità 8kbs:
Conrad 
Heart of Darkness
The Shadow line
Lord Jim
Daniel Defoe
Robinson Crusoe
voce elettronica: Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
----
Sviti
www.aism.it
 Associazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla
http://www.aism.it/donazioni/index.asp

 troppo spesso al dizionario?
Direi di no. Ma se leggi, in inglese, un libro la cui
storia conosci gia'...
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 troppo spesso al dizionario?
Dal dizionario ci dovrai passare. È inevitabile. Se la cosa ti consola, è
una strada che da un certo punto in poi sarà in discesa, soprattutto se
parallelamente cominci ad ascoltare qualche programma in inglese, mediante
Tv satellitare o un banale (ed economico) ricevitore ad onde corte che ti
consenta di sintonizzarti su BBC World Service
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 se secondo voi è opportuno iniziare con la lettura di un classico
<snip>
You might try these: there are books published in parallel texts; English
on one page, Italian on the facing page. This will allow you to read the
English page and occasionally refer to the Italian translation on the
opposite page.
Penguin publishes a series called "Penguin Parallel Text" (there are two
editions out now, maybe three) with short stories by Italian authors, with
the English translation.
The first issue is so old there is no ISBN, but the second is ISBN
0-14-003253-3. These are really meant for English speakers wanting to learn
Italian, so the notes provided elaborate on the Italian phrases and idioms,
rather than on the English, but I think they still might be helpful.
There is also a series from Dover Books Called "Eleven Short Stories/Undici
Novelle" di Luigi Pirandello, with the same format of parallel text. This
one is ISBN 0-486-28091-8.
I can't attest to the quality of the translators; they seem fine to me. I
agree with Adam that it might be better to read something shorter than a
classic at this point, which is why I'm suggesting short stories. I hope
you can find these books and that you think they will be useful.
-- 
If you feel the need to e-mail me, un-not my address first.


Grazie della segnalazione. Ho un libro fatto esattamente così, in
"parallel texts", si tratta di The Shadow-Line (La linea d'ombra) di
Joseph Conrad, Einaudi Tascabili, serie Bilingue. ISBN 88-06-13055-2.
Credi che vada bene per iniziare?


 The Shadow line
Questo, per dire, non è molto facile. Ci sono molti termini strani.
Fai un po' di esperimenti leggendo le prime pagine di diversi libri, ma
secondo me è davvero troppo presto.
Ciao, FB
-- 
L'importante è che risplenda tu, sola primadonna e immarcescibile leggenda
del tuo pianerottolo.
(Lucangel su it.cultura.libri)

 Credi che vada bene per iniziare?
It depends on your goal. The title you mention is very good reading,
however dated (antiquato?) Conrad is a well-known an celebrated writer.
(Interestingly, English was not his first language; I believe it was his
third, after Ukrainian and French.)
You can certainly read that and develop your perception of English words
and syntax, but if your goal is to read to improve your speaking ability,
your knowledge of modern-day English, I would suggest something more
modern.
For me, I find that shorter works are easier to "digest"; I can finish a
story more easily, and that helps me feel somewhat more accomplished. A
longer work, by its nature of taking longer for me to complete, defers that
satisfaction. I'm not suggesting that you never read longer works, or
classics, but maybe at this stage of your knowledge it's better to try
shorter works. Just my opinion.


perché non serve a nulla.
Io adoro leggere i dizionari per immagini, i dizionari visuali, o come
cavolo si vogliano chiamare. Mi ricordo tante belle parole inutili.
Però è stata una soddisfazione leggere un NG di giardinaggio e capire
perfettamente a che cosa si riferissero parlando di "earwig". :)
Poi, per quanto riguarda le parole inutili, ne imparo molte leggendo
fantasy.
Now I have to go. I have to hone my wootz saber. Hey, journeyman
wizard, put down your staff and give me that whetstone.
When you read fantasy books, you learn that a morning star is not
something nice you await in the morning, but a threat for your skull.
;)
Sebastiano

 Mi ricordo tante belle parole inutili.
Sono le migliori!


 ;)
is it a weapon? do I remember well? :)
I don't know why, maybe I heard of it in some rpg :-)

).
FILTRI:
B1FF:
1T DEPEND5 ON YOU'RE GOAL!! TH3 T1TEL U MENSHUN I5 VERY 
C00L!!! REEDING, HOWEVER DATED (ANTIQUA2??!!) CONRAD IS A 
WEL-KNOWN AN CELEBRATED WR1TER!! (INTERE5TINGLY, ENGLISH 
WA5 NOT HIS F1RST LANGUAGE; I BELIEV3 IT WA5 HI5 THIRD, 
AFTER UKRAINIAN & FRENCH!!)
YOU CAN CERTAINLY REED THAT & DEVELOP YOU'RE PERCEPSHUN OF
ENGL15H WORDS & 5YNTAX, BUT IF YOU'RE GOAL IS 2 REED 2 
1MPRUV YOU'RE SPEEK1NG AB1LITY, YOU'RE KNOWLEDGE OF 
MODERN-DAY ENGLI5H, I WUD SUGGE5T SUMTH1NG MERE MODERN.
FOR ME, 1 F1ND THAT SHORTER WORKS R EES1ER 2 "DIGE5T"; I CAN
F1N1SH A STERY MERE EE5ILY, & THAT HELPS ME FEEL SUMWHAT 
MERE ACCOMPLISHED. A LONGER WORK, BUY 1T5 NATUR3 OF TAKING 
LONGER 4 ME 2 COMPLET3, DEFERS THAT SATI5FACSHUN!! I"M NOT 
5UGGESTING THAT U NEVER REED LONGER WORKS, OR CLAS51C5, BUT 
MAYB3 AT TH15 STAGE OF YOU'RE KNOWLEDG3 IT"S BETTER 2 TRY 
5HERTER WERKS. JU5T MY OP1NION!!
BROOKLYN:
It depends on your goal. Yuh with me? De title yuh menshun 
is very good readin', howevuh dated (antiquato, or what?) 
Conrad is a well-known an celebrated writuh. 
(Interestingly, English was not his first language; I 
believe it was his toid, aftuh Ukrainian and French. Ya' 
dig?)
Yuh can certainly read dat and develop your percepshun of
English wawhds and syntax, but if your goal is tuh read tuh
improve your speakin' ability, your knowledge of modern-day
English, I would suggest somethin' mawh modern. Right?
Fawh me, I find dat shawhtuh wawhks are easiuh tuh 
"digest"; I can finish a stawhy mawh easily, and dat helps 
me feel somewhat mawh accomplished. Yuh got me so fahr? A 
longuh wawhk, by its nature of takin' longuh fawh me tuh 
complete, defers dat satisfacshun. I'm not suggestin' dat 
yuh nevuh read longuh wawhks, or classics, but maybe at dis 
stage of your knowledge it's bettuh tuh try shawhtuh 
wawhks. Ya' dig? Just my opinion. Yuh with me?
CHEF:
It depends oon yuoor guel. Zee teetle-a yuoo menshun is fery
guud reedeeng, hooefer deted (unteeqooetu?) Cunred is a
vell-knoon un celebreted vreeter. Bork Bork Bork!
(Interesteengly, Ingleesh ves nut hees furst lungooege-a; I
beleeefe-a it ves hees thurd, effter Ukreeeniun und French.)
Yuoo cun certeeenly reed thet und defelup yuoor percepshun 
ooff Ingleesh vurds und syntex, boot iff yuoor guel is tu 
reed tu imprufe-a yuoor speekeeng ebeelity, yuoor 
knooledge-a ooff mudern-dey Ingleesh, I vuoold sooggest 
sumetheeng mure-a mudern. Bork Bork Bork!
Fur me-a, I feend thet shurter vurks ere-a ieseeer tu 
"deegest"; I cun feenish a stury mure-a ieseely, und thet 
helps me-a feel sumoohet mure-a eccumpleeshed. A lunger 
vurk, by its netoore-a ooff tekeeng lunger fur me-a tu 
cumplete-a, deffers thet seteesffecshun. I'm nut 
sooggesteeng thet yuoo nefer reed lunger vurks, oor 
clesseecs, boot meybe-a et thees stege-a ooff yuoor 
knooledge-a it's better tu try shurter vurks. Joost my 
oopeeniun. Bork Bork Bork!
COCKNEY:
It depends on yor goal. The title yer mention is right right
good readin', 'owever dated (antiquato, isit?) Conrad is a
well-known an celebrated writer. (Interestingly, right, 
English were not 'is first 'Am Sandwich; I believe it were 
'is third, after Ukrainian and French.)
Yer can certainly read that and develop yor perception o'
English words and syntax, but if yor goal is ter read ter
improve yor speakin' ability, yor knowledge o' modern-day
English, right, I would suggest sumfink more modern.
For me, right, I find that shorter works are easier ter
"digest"; I can finish a story more easily, and that 'elps 
me feel somewhat more accomplished. A longer work, by its 
nature o' takin' longer for me ter complete, defers that 
satisfaction, i'n it? I'm not suggestin' that yer never 
read longer works, right, or classics, right, but maybe at 
this stage o' yor knowledge it's better ter give it a go 
shorter works. Just me opinion.
DRAWL:
It depends on chur goal. Thuh title yawl mention iz very 
good readin', however dated (antiquato?) Conrad izza 
wayul-known an celebrated writer. (Interestingly, English 
wuz not his fursd language; Ah bleeve it wuz his thurd, 
after Ukrainian an French.)
Yawl can certainly read thet an develop chur perception uh
English words an syntax, but fewr goal iz tuh read tuh 
improve chur speakin' ability, chur knowledge uh modern-day 
English, Ahd suggest sumpn more modern.
Fahwar may, Ah find thet shorter works is easier tuh 
"digest"; Ah can finish uh story more easily, an thet helps 
may feel sumwhat more accomplished. Uh longer work, by its 
nature uh takin' longer fahwar may tuh complete, defers 
thet satisfaction. Ahm not suggestin' thet yawl nevur read 
longer works, or classics, but maeybe at thus stage uh chur 
knowledge it's better tuh try shorter works. Gist mah 
opinion.
FUDD:
It depends on youw goaw. De titwe you mention is vewy good
weading, howevew dated (antiqwato?) Conwad is a weww-known 
an cewebwated wwitew. (Intewestingwy, Engwish was not his 
fiwst wanguage; I bewieve it was his diwd, aftew Ukwainian 
and Fwench.)
You can cewtainwy wead dat and devewop youw pewception of
Engwish wowds and syntax, but if youw goaw is to wead to 
impwove youw speaking abiwity, youw knowwedge of modewn-day 
Engwish, I wouwd suggest someding mowe modewn, 
uh-hah-hah-hah.
Fow me, I find dat showtew wowks awe easiew to "digest"; I 
can finish a stowy mowe easiwy, and dat hewps me feew 
somewhat mowe accompwished. A wongew wowk, by its natuwe of 
taking wongew fow me to compwete, defews dat satisfaction, 
uh-hah-hah-hah. I'm not suggesting dat you nevew wead 
wongew wowks, ow cwassics, but maybe at dis stage of youw 
knowwedge it's bettew to twy showtew wowks. Just my 
opinion, uh-hah-hah-hah.
JETHRO:
It depends on yore goal. Duh title y'all menshun is right 
good readin', howevuh datd (antiquato?) Conrad is ah 
well-knoed ah celebratd writuh. (Interestingly, English wuz 
not his first language; Ah believe it wuz his third, aftuh 
Ukrainian and French.)
Y'all c'n certainly read that and develop yore percepshun uv
English words and syntax, but if yore goal is tuh read tuh
improve yore speakin' ability, yore knowledge uv modern-day
English, Ah would suggest somethin' mo modern.
Fer me, Ah find that shortuh works is easiuh tuh "digest"; 
Ah c'n finish ah story mo easily, and that heps me feel 
somewhat mo accomplishd. Ah longuh work, by its natuuh uv 
takin' longuh fer me tuh complete, defers that 
satisfacshun. I ain't suggestin' that y'all nevuh read 
longuh works, ore classics, but mebbe at this stage uv yore 
knowledge it's bettuh tuh try shortuh works. Just mah 
opinion.
JIVE:
It depends on yo' goal. De title ya mention be real baaaad
readin', howeva' dated (antiquato?) Conrad be some damn
well-knode an celebrated writa'. (Interestingly, English 
wuz not his fust language; Ah' reckon' it wuz his dird, 
afta' Ukrainian an' French. Lop some boogie.)
You's kin certainly eyeball dat an' develop yo' puh'ception 
uh English wo'ds an' syntax, but if yo' goal be t' eyeball 
t' improve yo' speakin' ability, yo' knowledge uh modern-day
English, Ah' would suggest sump'n mo'e modern. 'S coo', bro.
Fo' me, Ah' find dat sho'ta' wo'ks is easia' t' "digest"; 
Ah' kin finish some damn sto'y mo'e easily, an' dat helps 
me feel somewhat mo'e accomplished. Word! A longa' wo'k, by 
its nature uh takin' longa' fo' me t' complete, defers dat 
satisfaction. 'S coo', bro. I'm not suggestin' dat ya neva' 
eyeball longa' wo'ks, o' classics, but maybe at dis stage 
uh yo' knowledge it's betta' t' try sho'ta' wo'ks. Jes' 
mah' opinion. 'S coo', bro.
KRAUT:
It depends on your goal. Ze title you mention ist fery good
r-r-readinkt, howefer dated (antiquato?) Konrad ist a 
vell-known an kelebrated vriter. (Interestinktly, Englisch 
vas nicht his first language; I beliefe it vas his dird, 
after Ukrainian und French.)
You kan kertainly r-r-read dat und defelop your perception 
uff Englisch vords and syntax, but if your goal ist to 
r-r-read to improfe your speakinkt ability, your knowledge 
uff modern-day Englisch, I vould suggest somedinkt more 
modern.
For me, I find dat schorter vorks are easier to "digest"; I 
kan finisch a story more easily, und dat helps me feel 
somewhat more accomplisched. A longer vork, by its nature 
uff takinkt longer for me to komplete, defers dat 
satisfaction. I'm nicht suggestinkt dat you nefer r-r-read 
longer vorks, or classics, but maybe at das stage uff your 
knowledge it's better to try schorter vorks. Just my 
opinion.
PANSY:
It dependth on your goal. Let me tell you... The title you
mention ith very thplendid reading, however dated 
(antiquato?) Conrad ith a well-known an thelebrated writer. 
Mmmh. (Interethtingly, English wath not hith firtht 
language; I believe it wath hith third, after Ukrainian and 
French. Like, ooh.)
You can thertainly read that and develop your pertheption of
English wordth and thyntakth, but if your goal ith to read 
to improve your thpeaking ability, your knowledge of 
modern-day English, I would thuggetht thomething more 
modern. Let me tell you...
For me, I find that shorter workth are eathier to 
"digetht"; I can finish a thtory more eathily, and that 
helpth me feel thomewhat more accomplished. You know, 
honey? A longer work, by itth nature of taking longer for 
me to complete, deferth that thatithfaction. Let me tell 
you... I'm not thuggethting that you never read longer 
workth, or clathicth, but maybe at thith thtage of your 
knowledge it'th better to try shorter works. Mmmh. Jutht my 
opinion. Let me tell you...
POSTMODERN:
The semiotic object depends on your goal. Tted Kennedy 
title you mention is semiotically very subliminated 
homosexuality type reading, however dated (antiquato?) 
Conrad is semiotically a well-known an celebrated writer. 
(Interestingly, English was semiotically not his 
semiotically first language; I believe the semiotic object 
was semiotically his semiotically third, after Ukrainian 
and French.)
You can certainly read that deconstructed and develop your
perception of English logos and syntax, but if your goal is
semiotically to read to improve your speaking ability, your
knowledge of modern-day English, I would suggest
somephallic-symbol-like weapon more modern.
For reevalution of Manichaeanism and me, I find that
deconstructed shorter works are easier to "digest"; I can 
finish a mythos more easily, and that deconstructed helps 
me feel somewhat more accomplished. A longer work, by its 
nature of taking longer for reevalution of Manichaeanism 
and me to complete, defers that deconstructed satisfaction. 
I'm not suggesting that deconstructed you never empower 
read longer works, or classics, but maybe at this 
semiotically stage of your knowledge it's better to try 
shorter works. Just the objective opinion.
REDNECK:
It depends on yer goal. Thuh title yew menshun is real good
readin', however dated (antiquato?) Conrad is a well-knowed 
an celebrated writer. KnowwhutImean? (Innerestingly, 
English wad'n his first language; Ah reckon it wuz his 
third, after Ukrainian an' French.)
Yew kin certainly read that an' develop yer percepshun uh
English words an' syntax, but if'n yer goal is tuh read tuh
improve yer speakin' ability, yer knowledge uh modern-day
English, Ah'd suggest sump'm more modern.
Fer me, Ah find that shorter works are easier tuh "digest"; 
Ah kin finish a story more easily, an' that helps me feel 
somewhat more accomplished. A longer work, by its nature uh 
takin' longer fer me tuh complete, defers that 
satisfacshun. Ah ain't suggestin' that yew never read 
longer works, or classics, but maybe at this here stage uh 
yer knowledge it's better tuh try shorter works. Jus' muh 
opinion.
VALSPEAK:
It depends on your goal. Thuh title you mention is like wow!
super bitchin' readin', mostly however dated (antiquato?) 
Conrad is like, ya know, a well-known an celebrated writer.
(Interestingly, like, wow English was not his first 
language; I believe it was his third, oh, baby after 
Ukrainian and French.)
You can certainly read that and develop your perception of
English words and syntax, like, wow but if your goal is like
wow! to read to improve your speakin' ability, fer shure 
your knowledge of modern-day English, like, wow I would 
suggest somethin' more modern.
For me, oh, baby I find that shorter works are easier to
"digest"; I can finish a story more easily, like and that 
helps me feel somewhat more accomplished. A longer work, 
like, wow by its nature of takin' longer for me to 
complete, mostly defers that satisfaction. I'm not 
suggestin' that you never read longer works, mostly or 
classics, like but if the vibes are right at like, ya know, 
this stage of your knowledge it's better to try shorter 
works. Just my opinion.
WAREZ:
It d3pend5 0n j00R gO41. D4 7|t13 j00 M3gnt!()|\| |s v3ry 
1337 R3adY]\[g, ]-[ow3v3r d4Te|) (@N7IQu4tO?) cOgnRA|) |Z a
\/\/3Ll-KNown @n C3l3BRA7Ed WrYt3r. (I|\|73r3sTYn61y, 
3N61is]-[ w4S n0T H!S f!rZ7 lAn6Uag3; i 83lIevE |7 waS hiZ 
Third, af73R uCr@in|an @gnD fR3nkh.)
U kAn k3rtA!gnlY R3AD 7Ha7 agnD |)3v3LoP j00R Perc3ptIo|\| 
()ph 3ng1ish WorDs @nd SyntAx, bU7 iph j00r 6()@L I5 70 
rEaD T0 YmPr0Ve j00r 5pE4K!|\|6 4bil|7y, j00r Cn0Wledg3 0f 
]\/[od3Rn-d4y 3NgLYsh, ! w0u1d ZUgg3sT So]\/[37HIN6 mOR3 
m0Dergn.
F0r M3, Y fi|\|D t]-[47 Zh0Rt3R w0rKZ r 3@ZIER To "di63st"; 
1 cA|\| F!niz]-[ A 5T0Ry MorE E@s|LY, aN|) tH@7 h3LPS m3 
ph3el SOm3Wh4T ]\/[0R3 4kC0mPlYZhed. @ L0N6er \/\/()Rk, bY 
!TZ n47UR3 of Tak!N6 LOng3r f()R M3 T0 COmpLE73, dEpheRS 
th@7 54t|SphaCtion. i'm |\|()T zuG635tYng ThA7 j00 |\|ev3r 
R3AD LO|\|g3r w()RcS, Or Cl4s51Cz, BU7 m@Yb3 at tH|S 5T463 
0F j00R cnowl3|)G3 1T'z Bet73r T() tRy z]-[0r73R \/\/oRcs. 
jUZt MY opYnI0N.
-- 
oggi no, domani sì

 Ditemi che effetto vi fa la lettura.
These are hilarious. I remember finding this web site (or a similar one) a
few years ago at work, and for the rest of the day no one could get any
work done because we were laughing too hard. (Especially the Elmer Fudd...)
but it seems to me the samples we filtered through Fudd contained several
"cwazy wabbit"s; maybe you used a different filter? Or maybe my original
text didn't contain the right combination or phraseology to trigger that.
At any rate, they're pretty stereotypical, but fun.


 shorter works. Just my opinion.
Agatha Christie, da BEST writa evah.
Bye, FB
-- 
"Gli americani sono ignoranti per loro stessa natura"
that is "The Americans are naturally ignorant"
(Paolo Bonardi on it.cultura.linguistica - 
http://snipurl.com/7ryg
)

 Shadow-Line" is appropriate in this case.
Basta provare, perň.
Ciao, FB
-- 
L'importante č che risplenda tu, sola primadonna e immarcescibile leggenda


 At any rate, they're pretty stereotypical, but fun.
They must be stereotypical, to be funny and simple to make.
I cannot know if my Fudd filtew is diffewent fwom youw one, 
of couwse.
Do you think they (esp. brooklyn, cockney, redneck & drawl) 
are close to the real spoken talk? 
Jive and valspeak seems to be more sociological rather than 
geografical varieties, yes? 
Kraut and pansy are really funny, although not very much 
pol.corr.
Postmodern is not good enough to be really funny, it looks 
too much repetitive, but the task here is more difficult.
Bee saying "yoo".


 Bee saying "yoo".
CU2


 voce elettronica: Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
scusa è voce elettronica o umana?
nel caso di voce elettronica cosa indicano i nomi?