Most Common Mis-pronunciations by Pinoys
Pietro E Reyes, III
hippopotamus as hippopoTAmus
comfortable as comPORtable
elementary as elemenTAry
seventy five as seBENtipayb
utensil as U-tensil
bus as boos
handbag as hambag
pliers as plies
administrative as admiNIStrahtib
adolescent as adoLEScent
Arnold Pedrigal
First of all, i am not sure whether what you state above are all correct
and that Filipinos do pronounce it the way you claim in the above. I believe you are
insulting the vast majority of the educated Filipinos.
Filipinos are not Americans so don't expect them to pronounce the English
words exactly the way it should be. The primary aim of communication is to convey
a meaningful message, especially if you are taking the context of Filipinos
speaking English in the Philippines. So not unless you are speaking to
an American, to say "boos" instead of "buhs" for the word "bus", why
would one care?
Pietro E Reyes, III
I apologize if I offend/offended anyone on my posting. No offense or insult
was intended. I should have stated the subject as "Pronunciations" instead
of "Mis-pronunciations". My mistake. Your point well taken.
Prospectively, I would have learned the following lessons:
(1) I may have, possibly mistakenly, presumed that we could take a
whimsical look at how we are, as an ethnic group, and smile at what makes
us uniquely different from others. (2) Anyway, I had hoped that, again
possibly mistakenly, we need not be too "careful" and "antiseptic" about
what we post. (3) Finally, I thought that we could rise above taking
ourselves and what we post too seriously - unless otherwise apparently
intended.
BTW, I was not necessarily referring to the American English (Is there such
a thing, after all) as the "correct" English. Many consider, by convention,
the BBC/King's English as the reference for the language.
Also, I have experienced that an individual's pronunciation (e.g. of
English) is not a function of his level of education but rather of one's
exposure to his own native language and dialect during his formative years
resulting in the various accents each of us tend to possess when we speak a
language that is not our mother tounge.
Again, no insult or offense intended. If anyone is either insulted or
offended, please accept my apologies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Arnold Pedrigal <arpe...@arnold.corp.sun.com> wrote in article
<5152d4$6...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>...
Eric Cardenas
> So not unless you are speaking to
> > an American, to say "boos" instead of "buhs" for the word "bus", why
> > would one care?
Actually only in North America is bus pronounced as "bahs". Everywhere else
in the English-speaking world bus is pronounced "boos" so Pinoys are
correct. It is the North Americans who have abominated the language in this
regard, not the Pinoys.
Eric
down under
Andy S. Aganad
Pietro E Reyes, III wrote:
>
> hippopotamus as hippopoTAmus
> comfortable as comPORtable
> elementary as elemenTAry
> seventy five as seBENtipayb
> utensil as U-tensil
> bus as boos
> handbag as hambag
> pliers as plies
> administrative as admiNIStrahtib
> adolescent as adoLEScent
First of all, I think some of your examples are pretty bad examples.
But in the spirit of your thread, I have one thing to add. At least
Filipinos are consistent. The english language is hard enough to learn
without having to also learn the nuances of the American, bastardized
version of it.
One thing that some Filipinos could learn while in America, it is not
always proper to put the accent on the second sy LA ble. example:
Tex A Co for Texaco gas station
ca mer a for camera.
I've heard those a few times.
Charles R. Buchanan
In a previous article, per...@ix.netcom.com ("Pietro E Reyes, III") says:
>hippopotamus as hippopoTAmus
>comfortable as comPORtable
>elementary as elemenTAry
>seventy five as seBENtipayb
>utensil as U-tensil
>bus as boos
>handbag as hambag
>pliers as plies
>administrative as admiNIStrahtib
>adolescent as adoLEScent
>
...and the moral of the story is? Is that like the joke (in which a
filipino told me):
Q:What do you call two Guys in the Philippine Air Force?
A:A pair of 'pliers'!
Of course you forgot prench pries (French Fries), and who could forget
when someone gets mad at you and says 'puck you'!
It's funny sounding and all, and I use to rag on my asawa big time. Good
thing she could take a joke huh? A lot of people get offended by it. In
those ways that people are trying to be insensitive, I can understand why.
--
Charles R. Buchanan ---GO CLEVELAND INDIANS--
wx...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca ---1996 World Champions--
io...@cleveland.freenet.edu Cleveland Ohio - Home of the Rock and Roll
Hall of Fame!
Charles R. Buchanan
In a previous article, arpe...@arnold.corp.sun.com (Arnold Pedrigal) says:
>
>In article 5366d9ce@default, "Pietro E Reyes, III" <per...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> hippopotamus as hippopoTAmus
>> comfortable as comPORtable
>> elementary as elemenTAry
>> seventy five as seBENtipayb
>> utensil as U-tensil
>> bus as boos
>> handbag as hambag
>> pliers as plies
>> administrative as admiNIStrahtib
>> adolescent as adoLEScent
>
>
>First of all, i am not sure whether what you state above are all correct
>and that Filipinos do pronounce it the way you claim in the above. I believe you are
>insulting the vast majority of the educated Filipinos.
>
>Filipinos are not Americans so don't expect them to pronounce the English
>words exactly the way it should be. The primary aim of communication is to convey
>a meaningful message, especially if you are taking the context of Filipinos
>speaking English in the Philippines. So not unless you are speaking to
>an American, to say "boos" instead of "buhs" for the word "bus", why
>would one care?
>
>
<See earlier post>
See? I told you! :-) <speaking to original poster Pietro E. Reyes III>
David J. Baltazar
Pietro E Reyes, III (per...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Also, I have experienced that an individual's pronunciation (e.g. of
: English) is not a function of his level of education but rather of one's
: exposure to his own native language and dialect during his formative years
: resulting in the various accents each of us tend to possess when we speak a
: language that is not our mother tounge.
Even understanding another person from an English speaking country
can be difficult due to their accents. I found it difficult to follow
the dialogue in the film _Transpotting_. Hell, sometimes I can't undertand
some of the Mid-West guests on the Jenni Jones or Jerry Springer shows.
David Baltazar
, ,
("\''/").___..--''"`-._ t...@terra.igcom.net
`9_ 9 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) balt...@allegro.cs.tufts.edu
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' (I moved my house to:
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' .' http://www.igcom.net/~taz/mypage/)
(il).-'' ((i).' ((!.-'
The Truth Is Out There Trust No One
Albert Yan
David J. Baltazar wrote:
>
> Pietro E Reyes, III (per...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : Also, I have experienced that an individual's pronunciation (e.g. of
> : English) is not a function of his level of education but rather of one's
> : exposure to his own native language and dialect during his formative years
> : resulting in the various accents each of us tend to possess when we speak a
> : language that is not our mother tounge.
>
> Even understanding another person from an English speaking country
> can be difficult due to their accents. I found it difficult to follow
> the dialogue in the film _Transpotting_. Hell, sometimes I can't undertand
> some of the Mid-West guests on the Jenni Jones or Jerry Springer shows.
Someone once told me he thought there were a number of regional dialects
(some of which bordered on being languages in themselves) in the US - he
named Southern, Deep Southern, Hillbilly, Texan, Californian, NewYawker,
New England, farm belt, rust belt, Hawaiian and a couple more I can't
remember.
None of which is the Queen's Egnlish by any stretch of the imagination.
Doesn't make them any less effective, just different.
To that, it seems we should add Pinoy English. So who's to say it's
wrong? Just different - and to those not used to it, a bit difficult to
understand sometimes, and certainly prone to unintended humor.
Albert
Marisa B Mendoza
Arnold Pedrigal <arpe...@arnold.corp.sun.com> wrote in article
<5152d4$6...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>...
> In article 5366d9ce@default, "Pietro E Reyes, III"
<per...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > hippopotamus as hippopoTAmus
> > comfortable as comPORtable
> > elementary as elemenTAry
> > seventy five as seBENtipayb
> > utensil as U-tensil
> > bus as boos
> > handbag as hambag
> > pliers as plies
> > administrative as admiNIStrahtib
> > adolescent as adoLEScent
>
>
> First of all, i am not sure whether what you state above are all correct
> and that Filipinos do pronounce it the way you claim in the above. I
believe you are
> insulting the vast majority of the educated Filipinos.
>
> Filipinos are not Americans so don't expect them to pronounce the English
> words exactly the way it should be. The primary aim of communication is
to convey
> a meaningful message, especially if you are taking the context of
Filipinos
> speaking English in the Philippines. So not unless you are speaking to
> an American, to say "boos" instead of "buhs" for the word "bus", why
> would one care?
>
>
Right. Let us carry on blissfully in our mis-pronuciations of English
words. Let us not care whether there are more widely accepted
pronunciations. Let us accept that we are Filipinos and we do not need to
or care to improve our diction and pronunciations whether we are in the
Philippnes or overseas. Let us be content and complacent in our ways
whether we can be better understood by others. Just as you say, who
cares...
Well maybe there are some who do like myself! Lighten up!
Arnold Pedrigal
Hey lady, i think you are missing the meat of the issue here.
I did not mean we should condone mis-pronunciations of English words.
ANd more so, I did not say we should NOT improve our pronunciation and
diction. It is, in fact, good to be excellent speakers of English,
nobody would deny that.
But please also be lenient to the fact that not all Filipinos have
the same level of education as you do. As ive said, and i hope u took
up Communication Arts in college, when one communicates (be it in
English or any other language), the main goal is to convey a message
successfully from person A to person B. Some people(and maybe
you are one of them) have become so obsessed in their aim of Americanizing
their accents, which to me is plain arrogance.
Tara J. Orlanes
Wouldnt you want a non native speaker of Pilipino/Tagalog or any language for
that matter speak it with the right accent and intonation?
I appreciate it when my greek friends correct my pronounciation (and
appreciate it even more when they say that I am learning to speak to language
like a native speaker)
Well just a thought...
Tara
>
Szu-yuan Huang
In article <DxKwp...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>, wx...@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Charles R. Buchanan) writes:
>Charles R. Buchanan ---GO CLEVELAND INDIANS--
Hope you don't mind me asking, but has any Pinoy called you Mr.
Boo-cha-nan?
My experience would be rather opposite. While in the Philippines,
nobody ever had problem pronouncing my family name right (with short
"a"). It was only after I came to the US when I started hearing all
different variations involving the long "a."
--
Mike Huang
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Software Engineer hu...@crypt.erie.ge.com
AC6000CW Locomotive Control System (814)875-3207
GE Transportation Systems http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/3189/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*** GETS and I do not speak on each other's behalf ***
=====================================================================
Gary Kirchherr
In article <3236E3...@unix.sri.com>, aag...@unix.sri.com wrote:
> Pietro E Reyes, III wrote:
> >
> > hippopotamus as hippopoTAmus
> > comfortable as comPORtable
> > elementary as elemenTAry
> > seventy five as seBENtipayb
> > utensil as U-tensil
> > bus as boos
> > handbag as hambag
> > pliers as plies
> > administrative as admiNIStrahtib
> > adolescent as adoLEScent
>
> First of all, I think some of your examples are pretty bad examples.
> But in the spirit of your thread, I have one thing to add. At least
> Filipinos are consistent. The english language is hard enough to learn
> without having to also learn the nuances of the American, bastardized
> version of it.
Now hold it just a minute. Who decided that American English is the
"bastardized" version? The English may have invented the language, but the
North Americans perfected it. :)
Seriously, there's no such thing as a "bastardized" language. They just
evolve into other languages. You might as well say that we're all speaking
a bastardized version of 16th-century Early Modern English, which as we
all know is "real" English. Now thou hast raised my ire, forsooth!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Who _is_ this guy? Find out at http://www.hayburn.com/~abbafan/
Eric Cardenas
Tara J. Orlanes <tar...@iis.forthnet.gr> wrote in article
<196594892...@iis.forthnet.gr>...
>
> Wouldnt you want a non native speaker of Pilipino/Tagalog or any language
for
> that matter speak it with the right accent and intonation?
>
The point is because English is widely spoken, perhaps the most widely
spoken, it has evolved differently for each locality. The Poms have a
different accent and intonation than the Yanks, Cannucks, Kiwis, Aussies,
Indians (subcontinent) and Pinoys. The point is THERE IS NO ONE CORRECT
PRONUNCIATION.
To the Pinoys, you must be proud of your own accent and intonation. It is
perfectly all right to say ceREmony versus cereMOny. It is all right to say
PEEFty or FEEPty in lieu of fifty. DeLIcacy is fine versus DELicacy. We
come from a different background than a native born Yank and our different
tone and diction represents our identity.
To the Americans, you are not the centre of the universe and YOUR accent
and intonation is not the only accent which is correct and proper. To be
pedantic in pronunciation exposes your inherent lack of confidence in
yourselves and inferiority complex/insecurity to others. Grow up and be
more tolerant of others.
end of f***in' sermon,
Eric
down under
--
The opinions expressed are mine alone and do not reflect the official views
of my employer.
Jess A Capalad
Arnold Pedrigal <arpe...@arnold.corp.sun.com> wrote in article
<51a2r4$l...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>...
Sounds to me like you're the one who's missed the issue altogether.
Leniency about our Filipino accents is not an issue. All nationalities have
their own accents, Filipinos included so no leniency required there.
As mentioned somewhere along the thread, level of education hardly affects
one's accent. Communications arts courses, as you mention (and I presume
you refer to speech and drama), should improve one's diction, intonation,
projection and various other speech qualities. But maybe your point ought
to be - while not everyone has taken communication arts courses, one should
be at least conscious about one's pronunciation of English words even if
only to be understood more clearly.
I certainly would appreciate receiving some indication of whether or not my
pronunciation is completely out of whack from the most common ones rather
than insisting and be happy about mispronouncing words.
I know my pronunciations could stand a lot of improvement but I appreciate
a humorous approach rather than yours. You need not be too defensive. It's
okay. We're all okay.
David J. Baltazar
Eric Cardenas (ecar...@microsoft.com) wrote:
: To the Pinoys, you must be proud of your own accent and intonation. It is
: perfectly all right to say ceREmony versus cereMOny. It is all right to say
: PEEFty or FEEPty in lieu of fifty. DeLIcacy is fine versus DELicacy. We
: come from a different background than a native born Yank and our different
: tone and diction represents our identity.
Well you are wrong here. According to the Oxford English dictionary,
the correct pronunciation and intonations are etched in stone. So there IS
a proper way of speaking English. If I was to learn another language, say
Japanese, am i going to use my American accent and completely disregard
the PROPER pronunciations? I would sound silly wouldn't I? Wouldn't
I want to learn the proper way of speaking Japanese? Same when I learned
Spanish, Greek and Tagalog, I learned their respective pronunciations
and intonations. How is a Spanish person going to understand you if you
are speaking spanish with an American (or other) accent?
totti
Gary Kirchherr wrote:
>
> In article <3236E3...@unix.sri.com>, aag...@unix.sri.com wrote:
>
> > Pietro E Reyes, III wrote:
> > >
> > > hippopotamus as hippopoTAmus
> > > comfortable as comPORtable
> > > elementary as elemenTAry
> > > seventy five as seBENtipayb
> > > utensil as U-tensil
> > > bus as boos
> > > handbag as hambag
> > > pliers as plies
> > > administrative as admiNIStrahtib
> > > adolescent as adoLEScent
> >
> > First of all, I think some of your examples are pretty bad examples.
> > But in the spirit of your thread, I have one thing to add. At least
> > Filipinos are consistent. The english language is hard enough to learn
> > without having to also learn the nuances of the American, bastardized
> > version of it.
>
> Now hold it just a minute. Who decided that American English is the
> "bastardized" version? The English may have invented the language, but the
> North Americans perfected it. :)
>
Oh really? Is that why my buddy (his parents and himself born and raised
here in North America) greet me every morning with: YO! WAZZZZUPPP??!!!
Tapos tatanungin pa ako ng: What were you AXING me? (Sarap batukan, eh.)
Eric Cardenas
David J. Baltazar <balt...@presto.cs.tufts.edu> wrote in article
<51cbb3$n...@d2.tufts.edu>...
> Well you are wrong here. According to the Oxford English dictionary,
> the correct pronunciation and intonations are etched in stone.
There is one basic flaw in your argument, Dave. And that is the fact that
the Oxford is not the UNIVERSAL dictionary. Ask your fellow Americans
around. The last time I checked you Yanks use your own Webster's
Dictionary. Ditto here down under. In the past we use Oxford's but nowadays
we have evolved our own Australian Dictionary.
The same with French. The Quebecois have their own diction and grammar than
their Francaise counterparts.
My point is it is about time that Filipinos quit being poor copycats of
Americans. We should evolve our own variation of this international
language to suit our tongues and localities.
Eric
PajaroAzul
When you hear people speak with an accent, and this is what you are
talking about, an accent, does it really matter whether the
pronunciation of the words you hear are by the book or not? Isn't it
sufficient that you understand what they mean to say, and not just the
way they say it? That someone feels annoyed when they hear a cultural
pronunciation (or mispronunciation if you insist) it takes away from
the whole point of attempting to communicate. With the thousands of
languages in the world, don't expect everyone to speak english the way
you want them to. If you are ashamed of the accent, then the problem
is your own. Intercultural communication, if ever to be accomplished
effectively, will require that you not only recognize the existence of
other countries, cultures, and languages but also accents. I for one
enjoy hearing an accent because it tells me where the person might be
from and that becomes a starting point to learning about other people
and the places they call home.
If I were at a gathering filled with persons who spoke perfect english
all the time it might get a little boring, but if I were to hear one
person say something like "lit us comins da siRImunis", I would
immediately think, "UY! May Ilocano dito! Sino 'yan?" Suddenly I'm not
bored.
Imagine what it's like sitting in a room (actual recent experience)
with about 20 other people who come from Argentina, Brazil, Africa,
Moscow, Japan, Thailand, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Czechoslovakia,
The Philippines, China, and oh yes California, and each one speaks
english with the accent of their country. Nothing about it bothers me.
It enriches my appreciation for the world.
-Mimi
Ronald Calderon
Tara J. Orlanes (tar...@iis.forthnet.gr) writes:
> Wouldnt you want a non native speaker of Pilipino/Tagalog or any language for
> that matter speak it with the right accent and intonation?
hell no! That means no more accents! Accents are cool!
Accents are like flavorings, and the dish is the language.
It'd be a pretty boring dish if there was only one kind of
flavoring/seasoning available for it. Imagine eating manga hilaw
(raw mangoes) with only "asin" as the sole available seasoning....
there is no "suka", no "toyo", no nothing....that would really
suck wouldn't it? Variety is the spice of life. accents are the
spice of a language.
--
Ron
--
<>==o===O===o===O===o===O===o===O===o===O===o===O===o===O===o==<>
Ronald R. Calderon .....look! look! ....I finally
bq...@freenet.carleton.ca made a sig that's *only* 4 lines!
<>==o===O===o===O===o===O===o===O===o===O===o===O===o===O===o==<>
Ronald Calderon
David J. Baltazar (balt...@presto.cs.tufts.edu) writes:
> Eric Cardenas (ecar...@microsoft.com) wrote:
>
> : To the Pinoys, you must be proud of your own accent and intonation. It is
> : perfectly all right to say ceREmony versus cereMOny. It is all right to say
> : PEEFty or FEEPty in lieu of fifty. DeLIcacy is fine versus DELicacy. We
> : come from a different background than a native born Yank and our different
> : tone and diction represents our identity.
>
> Well you are wrong here. According to the Oxford English dictionary,
> the correct pronunciation and intonations are etched in stone.
Would that be Brittish stone? American stone? Australian stone?
New Zealand stone? One dictionary's opinion does not alter the
fact that this is a very widely spread language and whenever something
is widely spread there will be variations that will develop. Now, for
a dictionary to render all these variations as "wrong" because it
doesn't conform to its idea of how things should be pronounced, is
against the nature of language itself. Language has always had,
and always will have variations such as accents.
A P Paran
> hell no! That means no more accents! Accents are cool!
>Accents are like flavorings, and the dish is the language.
>It'd be a pretty boring dish if there was only one kind of
>flavoring/seasoning available for it. Imagine eating manga hilaw
>(raw mangoes) with only "asin" as the sole available seasoning....
>there is no "suka", no "toyo", no nothing....that would really
>suck wouldn't it? Variety is the spice of life. accents are the
>spice of a language.
Das rayt. Der is natting rong wid habbing an aksent so long as you get
yorselp anderstood.
Cheers!
Gary Kirchherr
And no such examples of sloppy slang exist in British or Australian
English? Right. (Or should I say: "Geer!")
Ano ngayon ang punto mo!
William Petrie
In article <01bba14a$18fa4f90$cc0a3a9d@ecardena_nt2>, "Eric Cardenas" <ecar...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>The point is because English is widely spoken, perhaps the most widely
>spoken, it has evolved differently for each locality. The Poms have a
>different accent and intonation than the Yanks, Cannucks, Kiwis, Aussies,
>Indians (subcontinent) and Pinoys. The point is THERE IS NO ONE CORRECT
>PRONUNCIATION.
>
>To the Pinoys, you must be proud of your own accent and intonation. It is
>perfectly all right to say ceREmony versus cereMOny. It is all right to say
>PEEFty or FEEPty in lieu of fifty. DeLIcacy is fine versus DELicacy. We
>come from a different background than a native born Yank and our different
>tone and diction represents our identity.
>
>To the Americans, you are not the centre of the universe and YOUR accent
>and intonation is not the only accent which is correct and proper. To be
>pedantic in pronunciation exposes your inherent lack of confidence in
>yourselves and inferiority complex/insecurity to others. Grow up and be
>more tolerant of others.
>
>end of f***in' sermon,
>
>Eric
>down under
Good. I'll remember that next time I'm in Manila trying to say ngiti or
ngayon. Thanks.
Bill
>
Pietro E Reyes, III
Since the discussion has gone beyond the originally intended context, allow
me to share a few notes I lifted from my dusty old book entitled The
Cambridge Enyclopedia of the English Language:
RE: Standard English
2 Chief Issues; Internationalism and Identity
Internationalism implies intelligibility. If the reason for any nation
wishing to promote English is to give it access to what the broader
English-speaking world has to offer, then it is crucial for its people to
be able to understand the English of that world, and to be understood in
their turn. In short, internationalism demands an agreed standard - in
grammar, vocabulary, spelling, pronunciation, and conventions of use.
Identity implies individuality. If a nation wishes to preserve its
uniqueness or to esablish its presence, and to avoid being an anonymous
ingredient in a cultural melting pot, then it must search for ways of
expressing its difference from the rest of the world. Flags, uniforms, and
other such symbols will have their place, but nothing will be so naturally
and universally present as a national language - or, if there is none, a
national variety of an international language. In short, in the context of
English, identity demands linguistic distinctiveness - in grammar,
vocabulary, spelling, pronunciation, or conventions of language use.
The future of the English language depends on how the tension between these
two principles will be resolved.
Pietro E Reyes, III
Since the discussion has gone beyond the originally intended context, allow
me to share a few notes I lifted from my dusty old book entitled The
Cambridge Enyclopedia of the English Language:
On World English (Modern English)
The first significant step in the progress of English towards its status as
a world language took place inthe 16th century. At that time, the
mother-tounge English speakers in the world is thought to have been between
five and seven million, almost all of them living within the British isles.
Between the reign of Elizabeth I (1588) and the beginning of the reign of
Elizabeth II (1952), this figure increased almost fiftyfold, to around 250
million, the majority (around four fifths) living outside the British
Isles. Most of these people were, and continue to be, Americans, and it is
in 16th century North America that we find a fresh dimension being added to
the history of the language.
Family Tree Representation
of the Spread of English
(ref. note. the Philippines)
(I hope the |, _, - characters work!)
___New England
|___Midwest
_USA_|
| |___Liberia
| |___Puetro Rico
| | _Hawaii
| |_|
| |_Philippines
|
__ American__|
| | _Anglophone
| |___Canada__|
| |_Francophone
|
English - | ___England___Malta
| |___Ireland
| |___Scotland
| |___Wales
| | __India
|__ British____|___|__Pakistan
| |__SriLanka
| |__Bangladesh
| __Hongkong
|___|__Malaysia
| |__Singapore
| __Australia
|___|__Papua New Guinea
| |__New Zealand
| |__Pacific Is. Fiji
| __West Africa
|___ |__South Africa
| |__East Africa
| |__Seychelles
| __Falklands
|-----|__St Helena
| __Caribbean
|-----|__Guyana
Pietro E Reyes, III
Since the discussion has gone beyond the originally intended context, allow
me to share a few notes I lifted from my dusty old book entitled The
Cambridge Enyclopedia of the English Language:
5 Essential Characteristics of Standard English (SE)
1. It is a variety of English - a distinctive combination of linguistic
features with a particular role to play. It has no local base. There is
nothing in the grammar and vocabulary of a piece of SE to tell us which
part of a country it comes from.
2. The linguistic features of Standard English (SE) are chiefly matters of
grammar, vocabulary, and orthography (spelling and punctuation). It is
important to note that SE is not a matter of pronunciation; SE is spoken in
a wide variety of accents (including, of course, any prestige accent a
country may have, such as British).
3. Standard English (SE) is the variety of English which carries most
prestige within a country. "Prestige" is a social concent, whereby some
people have high standing in the eyes of others, whether this derives from
social class, material success, political strength, popular acclaim, or
educational background. The English that these people choose to use eill,
by this very fact, become the standard within their community. In the words
of one US linguist, SE is "the English used by the powerful".
4. The prestige attached to Standard English (SE) is recognized by adult
members of the community, and this motivates them to recommend SE as a
desirable educational target. It is the variety which is used as the norm
of communication by the country's leading institutions, such as the
government, law courts, and media. It is therefore the variety which is
likely to be the most widely disemminated among the public. It will,
accordingly, be widely understood - though not to the same extent by
everyone, and with varying comprehension of some of its features (thus
motivating the demands of the 'plain english' campaigns. It may or may not
be liked.
5. Although Standard English (SE) is widely understood, it is not widely
produced. Only a minority of people within a country (e.g. radio
newscasters) actually use it when they talk. Most people speak a variety of
regional English, or an admixture of standard and regional Englishes, and
reserve such labels as 'BBC English' or 'the King/Queen's English' for what
they perceive to be a 'pure' SE. Similarly, when they write - itself a
minority activity - the onsistent use of SE is required only in certain
tasks (such as a letter to a newspaper, but not necessarily to a close
friend). More than anywhere else, SE is to be found in print.
On this basis, we may define the Standard English of an English-speaking
country as a minority variety (identified chiefly by its vocabulary,
grammar and orthography (spelling and punctuation) which carries the most
prestige and is most widely understood.
Pietro E Reyes, III
Since the discussion has gone beyond the originally intended context, allow
me to share a few notes I lifted from my dusty old book entitled The
Cambridge Enyclopedia of the English Language:
On World English (Modern English)
Standard English
2 Chief Issues; Internationalism and Identity
Internationalism implies intelligibility. If the reason for any nation
wishing to promote English is to give it access to what the broader
English-speaking world has to offer, then it is crucial for its people to
be able to understand the English of that world, and to be understood in
their turn. In short, internationalism demands an agreed standard - in
grammar, vocabulary, spelling, pronunciation, and conventions of use.
Identity implies individuality. If a nation wishes to preserve its
uniqueness or to esablish its presence, and to avoid being an anonymous
ingredient in a cultural melting pot, then it must search for ways of
expressing its difference from the rest of the world. Flags, uniforms, and
other such symbols will have their place, but nothing will be so naturally
and universally present as a national language - or, if there is none, a
national variety of an international language. In short, in the context of
English, identity demands linguistic distinctiveness - in grammar,
vocabulary, spelling, pronunciation, or conventions of language use.
The future of the English language depends on how the tension between these
two principles will be resolved.
Joseph Mancuso
On 14 Sep 1996, PajaroAzul wrote:
> When you hear people speak with an accent, and this is what you are
> talking about, an accent, does it really matter whether the
> pronunciation of the words you hear are by the book or not? Isn't it
> sufficient that you understand what they mean to say, and not just the
> way they say it?
Considering the heavy teasing I endure whenever I speak Tagalog (because
of my American accent) I would love to see BOTH sides of a language
practice your philosophy Mimi !!!!
Pietro E Reyes, III
More notes on Pronunciations of English (lifted from the Cambridge
Encyclopedia of the English Language):
Backgrounder on "THE" accent
In England, one accent has traditionally stood out above all others in its
ability to convey associations of respectable social standing and a good
education. This "prestige" accent is known as RECEIVED PRONUNCIATION, or
RP. It is associated with the south-east, where most RP-speakers live or
work, but it can be found anywhere in the country. Accents usually tell us
where a person is from; RP tells us only about a person's social or
educational background.
In due course, RP came to sybolize a person's high position in society.
During the 19th century, it became the accent of public schools, such as
Eton and Harrow, and was soon the main sign that a speaker had received a
good education. It spread rapidly throughout the Civil Service of the
British Empire and the armed forces, and became the voice of authority and
power. Because it was a regionally 'neutral' accent, and was thought to be
more widely understood than any regional accent, it came to adopted by the
BBC, when radio broadcasting began in the 1920s. During WW2, it became
linked in many minds with the voice of freedom, and the notion of a "BBC
pronunciation" grew.
Present Day Situationer on "THE" accent
Today, with the breakdown of rigid divisions between social classes and the
development of the mass media, RP is no longer the preserve of a social
elite. It is best described as an "educated" accent - though "accents"
would be more precise, for there are several varieties. The most widely
used is that generally heard on the BBC; but there are also conservative
and trend-setting forms. The former is found in many older establishment
speakers. The latter is usually associated with certain social and
professional groups - in particular, the voice of the London upwardly
mobile ("the Sloane Rangers") in the 1980s.
Early BBC recordings show how much RP has altered over just a few decades,
and they point that no acccent is immune to change, not even 'the best'.
But the most important observation is that RP is no longer as widely used
today as it was 50 years ago. It is still the standard accent of the Royal
Family, Parliament, the Church of England, the High Courts, and other
national institutions; but less than 3 per cent of the British people speak
it in a pure form now. Most educated people have developed an accent which
is a mixture of RP and various regional characteristics -'modified RP',
some call it.
Nonetheless RP continues to retain considerable status. It has long been
the chief accent taught to foreigners who wish to learn a British model,
and is thus widely used abroad (by far more peole, in fact, than have it as
a mother-tounge accent in the UK).
Ronald Calderon
A P Paran (MEP9...@shef.ac.uk) writes:
>
>
> Das rayt. Der is natting rong wid habbing an aksent so long as you get
> yorselp anderstood.
>
ooo yes, dat is beri beri correctness.
roit on mayt, thot is roit on torget.
Of cohhs, you are anhdeed correct suh.
--
Ron "Ay Layk Aksens" Calderon
Lochinvar
"Eric Cardenas" <ecar...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Tara J. Orlanes <tar...@iis.forthnet.gr> wrote in article
><196594892...@iis.forthnet.gr>...
>>
>> Wouldnt you want a non native speaker of Pilipino/Tagalog or any language
>for
>> that matter speak it with the right accent and intonation?
>>
>The point is because English is widely spoken, perhaps the most widely
>spoken, it has evolved differently for each locality. The Poms have a
>different accent and intonation than the Yanks, Cannucks, Kiwis, Aussies,
>Indians (subcontinent) and Pinoys. The point is THERE IS NO ONE CORRECT
>PRONUNCIATION.
I think I will not agree with you on this one. If we pronounce
anything anyhow then I think we're creating chaos. I have posted an
article last year about standardization of pronunciation by William
Webster in America. i know you would argue on the Aussies being
different but the point is at least there is an effort in
standardization - not a free for all.
i wrote last year about my experience with a fellow Filipino saying
something about a "plug". I honestly told him "sorry I don't
understand what you're saying". I did understand him after he
corrected his pronunciation to "flag".
Besides English let's take Chinese. I have tried to learn Mandarin
once. Perhaps you know that a slight mispronunciation in Chinese could
lead to a different meaning - and it nearly cost me a slap on the
face.
I really would like to show you how many people from Manila would
laugh at my Tagalog with an Ilonggo accent.
--
Lochinvar Lochinvar B. Bucane
_________ E-mail:Loch...@mailhost.net
/#########\ :Loch...@hotmail.com
/###########\ :Loch...@letterbox.com
|#############\ Web :http://www.geocities.com/Paris/4345
|##############\ Fax/Voice:(65) 753-3002
/_______)######## -----------------------
\\\\\\\ ZO###### DARK KNIGHT
\\\\\\ ##### -----------------------
\\\\\_____) \## "Money may not buy happiness, but it
/@@@@@\ \# buys the kind of misery we enjoy."
<@@@@@@@> V
Eric Cardenas
Lochinvar <lbbu...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in article
<51mb0j$g...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>...
> "Eric Cardenas" <ecar...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >The point is because English is widely spoken, perhaps the most widely
> >spoken, it has evolved differently for each locality. The Poms have a
> >different accent and intonation than the Yanks, Cannucks, Kiwis,
Aussies,
> >Indians (subcontinent) and Pinoys. The point is THERE IS NO ONE CORRECT
> >PRONUNCIATION.
>
> I think I will not agree with you on this one. If we pronounce
> anything anyhow then I think we're creating chaos. I have posted an
> article last year about standardization of pronunciation by William
> Webster in America. i know you would argue on the Aussies being
> different but the point is at least there is an effort in
> standardization - not a free for all.
>
I agree that there should be standardisation. It's about time Pinoys come
up with their OWN standard. Why should Pinoys follow the American standard?
Pinoys should quit treating English as their secondary language. It is one
of the primary languages, so let's get serious with it! We should also quit
being American copycats.
Eric
Pietro E Reyes, III
Eric,
Since you're at it, why stop at a Pinoy standard? Why not Luzon, Visayas
and Mindanao standards, and further, why not an Ilocano (and even further,
Laoag standard and Vigan standard), Pampango, Bicolano, Davaoeno, etc.
standard?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eric Cardenas <ecar...@microsoft.com> wrote in article
<01bba4f1$43c7c5e0$cc0a3a9d@ecardena_nt2>...
A.Jante
Lochinvar wrote:
> "Eric Cardenas" <ecar...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >The point is because English is widely spoken, perhaps the most widely
> >spoken, it has evolved differently for each locality. The Poms have a
> >different accent and intonation than the Yanks, Cannucks, Kiwis, Aussies,
> >Indians (subcontinent) and Pinoys. The point is THERE IS NO ONE CORRECT
> >PRONUNCIATION.
> I think I will not agree with you on this one. If we pronounce
> anything anyhow then I think we're creating chaos. I have posted an
> article last year about standardization of pronunciation by William
> Webster in America. i know you would argue on the Aussies being
> different but the point is at least there is an effort in
> standardization - not a free for all.<snip>
I have to agree with Eric. Even in the US, although media has promoted
"radio English" (the accent that most actors/deejays/ etc use),
there is a wide variation of accents. Dontya'll agree? as my
Texan niece would say. Just witness the success of Fran Dreischer's
sitcom "The Nanny" where she proudly shows off her Queens accent.
The same is true for Britain/UK - those tiny islands have a great
many accents. When someone from the UK comes over to the US I'll
bet you no American ever dares to "correct" his accent. Ditto
for Oz and NZ, where English is the common tongue as well. The
"right" pronunciation is compeletly relative to the location/common
usage.
English is not the national language in either the Philippines
or, say, India, but it is in such common use among both populations
that their own accents must be considered valid within their context.
Which all reminds me of that great song from My Fair Lady (Oh Why
Can't the English Learn to Speak?).
You say tomAHto, I say tomAYto, you say potAHto, I say potAYto ...
oops, wrong song ...
Alyn
Eric Cardenas
Pietro E Reyes, III <per...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<01bba644$7b39e7c0$4599...@pereyes.ix.netcom.com>...
> Eric,
>
> Since you're at it, why stop at a Pinoy standard? Why not Luzon, Visayas
> and Mindanao standards, and further, why not an Ilocano (and even
further,
> Laoag standard and Vigan standard), Pampango, Bicolano, Davaoeno, etc.
> standard?
>
Why not, mate? Within Tagalog speakers alone there are variations. My
parents-in-law originally from Lopez, Quezon have different accent and
diction than my friends from Cavite. Ditto with my Mum originally from
Pampanga.
The point is, mate, language cannot be standardised, in stone. "Speak and
let speak", so to speak.
Eric
Pietro E Reyes, III
Having chosen English as the preferred language in the EEC, the
European Parliament has commissioned a feasability study in ways of
improving efficiency in communications between Government departments.
European officials have often pointed out that English spelling is
unnecessary difficult; for example: cough, plough, rough, through and
thorough. What is clearly needed is a phased programme of changes to
iron out these anomalies. The programme would, of course, be
administered by a committee staff at top level by participating nations.
In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using 's'
instead of the soft 'c'. Sertainly, sivil servants in all sities would
resieve this news with joy. Then the hard 'c' could be replaced by 'k'
sinse both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this klear up
konfusion in the minds of klerikal workers, but typewriters kould be
made with one less letter.
There would be growing enthousiasm when in the sekond year, it was
anounsed that the troublesome 'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'.
This would make words like 'fotograf' twenty per sent shorter in print.
In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be
expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated shanges are
possible. Governments would enkourage the removal of double letters
which have always been a deterent to akurate speling.
We would al agre that the horible mes of silent 'e's in the languag is
disgrasful. Therefor we kould drop thes and kontinu to read and writ as
though nothing had hapend. By this tim it would be four years sins the
skem began and peopl would be reseptive to steps sutsh as replasing
'th' by 'z'. Perhaps zen ze funktion of 'w' kould be taken on by 'v',
vitsh is, after al, half a 'w'. Shortly after zis, ze unesesary 'o
kould be dropd from words kontaining 'ou'. Similar arguments vud of
kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.
Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a reli
sensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trubls,
difikultis and evrivun vud fin it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drems
of the Guvermnt vud finali hav kum tru.
Rodrigo A. Dar
Eric Cardenas wrote:
>
> Lochinvar <lbbu...@singnet.com.sg> wrote in article
> <51mb0j$g...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>...
> >
> > >The point is because English is widely spoken, perhaps the most widely
> > >spoken, it has evolved differently for each locality. The Poms have a
> > >different accent and intonation than the Yanks, Cannucks, Kiwis,
> Aussies,
> > >Indians (subcontinent) and Pinoys. The point is THERE IS NO ONE CORRECT
> > >PRONUNCIATION.
> >
> > I think I will not agree with you on this one. If we pronounce
> > anything anyhow then I think we're creating chaos. I have posted an
> > article last year about standardization of pronunciation by William
> > Webster in America. i know you would argue on the Aussies being
> > different but the point is at least there is an effort in
> > standardization - not a free for all.
> >
>
> up with their OWN standard. Why should Pinoys follow the American standard?
>
> of the primary languages, so let's get serious with it! We should also quit
> being American copycats.
>
> Eric
Filipinos in the Philippines do NOT follow the American standard. I did
a number of sociolinguistic studies in the Philippines that pointed this
out. However, the one research project that brought this home was one
done by Emma Santos at the Philippne Normal College (at the time) when
she showed statistics that when Filipinos were not trying to identify
with Americans when they spoke English. Neither did they want to speak
like Americans. Instead, they identified with another group. Unnamed,
but it surely would not have been any of the other English speaking
communities of England, Australia, South Africa, etc. What she concluded
was that the Filipinos learning to speak English wanted to be identified
with what she called the Filipino English speakrs. This group as Teodoro
Llamzon of the Ateneo later analyzed was comprised of a group of
Filipinos (in the Philippines) who spoke English as a primary language
or as one of its primary languges - the language or languages first
learned by a speaker. This group was further expanded in size by a those
who used the language for a variety of reasons: government, business,
education, etc. Llamzon went on to theorize that there is a variety of
English that should be called Standard Filipino English. (Other
varieties of English are British English, American English, and
Australian English.)
In Filipino English there may be two varieties: that used for formal
situations such as government and international or serious business and
that used for socialization. The two vary slightly in pronunciation and
in the amount of inclusion of influences from Philippne languages. For
example, in a formal situation one may not use the term "to make baon".
We used to watch closely as then President Marcos would use the formal
version of Filipino English when welcoming dignitaries to the
Philippines. But he would use a different version when speaking more
informally with Filipinos.
--
Rodrigo (Rudy) A. Dar
San Jose, CA