Pronounciation of "X" in the beginning
Tones
as [z] e.g. Xerxes [za:rksi:z] , Xanthippe [zaenthipi] , Xavier[zaeivier].
Why [z], not[ks] ? But you can pronounce [ks] in the middle or last .
Is there anyone who can tell me the linguistic explanation of it ?
In Japanese , of course , we say [kserkses],[ksanthippe] ,but we call
the Saint [zavier] , who introduced the Christianity into Japan, maybe
because of his original sounds .
Regards, Toshiyuki Saito , in the suburbs of Tokyo
------------------------
## TOSHIYUKI SAITO
## sai...@onyx.dti.ne.jp
######################
frank
"Tones" <sai...@onyx.dti.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:Pdi75.366$Si7....@newsall.dti.ne.jp...
> You,English speaking people,pronounce the word beginning with "X"
> as [z]
No, not all, and certainly, one would imagine, not all Classicists, since
the Greek letter `x` (ksi) is (according to all primers) to be pronounced
`ks` rather than `z`, whether in the middle or at the beginning of a word;
but I grant that it may sometimes become `z` through laziness.
cheers
frank
Anthony J. Bryant
> In Japanese , of course , we say [kserkses],[ksanthippe] ,but we call
> the Saint [zavier] , who introduced the Christianity into Japan, maybe
> because of his original sounds .
Chotto chigau ja nai desu ka? When I was in Japan, I heard it as
[kuserukusesu].... that's very different. <G>
In American vernacular (as opposed to academic circles), initial X is
typically pronounced as /z/.
Tony
Tones
Anthony J. Bryant <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote
in message news:395EE934...@indiana.edu...
> Chotto chigau ja nai desu ka? When I was in Japan, I heard it as
> [kuserukusesu].... that's very different. <G>
>
> In American vernacular (as opposed to academic circles), initial X is
> typically pronounced as /z/.
I believe I pronounce like [kserkses] , but it unfortunately sounds like
[kuserukusesu] to you , for there is no [ks] or any double consonants
in Japanese. The psyche = not [saiki] , but [pusuke] here .
But [kusanpippe] or [zanthipi], which is better ? I do not know .
The question I would like to know is the reason why do you , ordinary people,
pronounce the first X as / z / .
As you , Anthony , pointed out , the well educated scholar is different
from the mass.
But frank did point as follows;
>but I grant that it may sometimes become `z` through laziness.
You have that sound and you can pronounce [ks] except in the beginning ,
but you , through laziness or deficiencies of classical education , say [zan-]
or [zer-] .
Still need any comments.
Robert Stonehouse
Boiling down from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary under 'X':
Words that begin with the prefix 'ex-' followed by a vowel or 'h'
are pronounced 'eks-' like other 'x' words when the stress is on the
'ex-'. But they become 'egz-' when the stress is on the following
syllable. So 'axis' is pronounced 'Aksis', but 'exact' is pronounced
'egsAct'. The same applies to some other words like 'anxious'
(-ksh-) and 'anxiety' (-gz-).
'In all words having initial x, (gz) is reduced to (z)'.
So this is not a matter of idleness or ignorance: it is a normal
rule of English pronunciation. Most of the words to which it applies
are from Greek but not all: for example 'xebec' has the old Spanish
'x' which I gather has now become 'j'.
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Musca Volitans
> Many thanks for your replies,
> Anthony J. Bryant <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote
> in message news:395EE934...@indiana.edu...
>
> > Chotto chigau ja nai desu ka? When I was in Japan, I heard it as
> > [kuserukusesu].... that's very different. <G>
> >
> > In American vernacular (as opposed to academic circles), initial X is
> > typically pronounced as /z/.
>
> I believe I pronounce like [kserkses] , but it unfortunately sounds like
> [kuserukusesu] to you , for there is no [ks] or any double consonants
> in Japanese. The psyche = not [saiki] , but [pusuke] here .
> But [kusanpippe] or [zanthipi], which is better ? I do not know .
>
> The question I would like to know is the reason why do you , ordinary
people,
> pronounce the first X as / z / .
> As you , Anthony , pointed out , the well educated scholar is different
> from the mass.
>
> But frank did point as follows;
> >but I grant that it may sometimes become `z` through laziness.
> You have that sound and you can pronounce [ks] except in the beginning ,
> but you , through laziness or deficiencies of classical education , say
[zan-]
> or [zer-] .
>
> Still need any comments.
Frank is right - the primary rule of English (and indeed all languages) is
the path of least resistance - laziness. If a borrowed word has a cluster
of sounds that is foreign to the native model, it is reduced. 'ps' and
'ks' are reduced. Upsilon similarly does not have the 'French u' sound,
though it does in German, where the 'u umlaut' corresponds exactly.
Similarly the 'ph' 'ch' and 'th' are not pronounced as in Classical Greek,
though the 'th' has the Byzantine (and modern Greek) sound, since that
phoneme exists in native English words. By contrast it is pronounced 't'
in German and French.
Relative to Japanese, I once did some work with several Japanese
engineers, who pronounced 'simulation' (a word they use all the time)
as 'shimi-yu-reh-shon' with the first 'i' much shortened though
perceptible (they could not speak English nor I Japanese). It is
in fact transcribed that way in the katakana syllabary. We
also discussed 'besu-boru' (pron more like bes-bor) (baseball). So I
think that the same principle applies - replace the foreign sounds
with something that is close.
It should be noted that this universal principle (;-) is routinely
violated by American television reporters who pronounce
every Spanish name with the great rhotaic and guttural flourish
derived from their two years of high-school Spanish. It would
break your heart to hear them say 'Nicaragua' (nee-kah-rrrrraaahh-
ghhwah) (which I hear on the BBC as 'nikuh-rah-gyoo-ah') ;-)
Regards,
Musca Volitans
Kevin O'Donnell
Musca Volitans wrote in message ...
>
>It should be noted that this universal principle (;-) is routinely
>violated by American television reporters who pronounce
>every Spanish name with the great rhotaic and guttural flourish
>derived from their two years of high-school Spanish
I live in San Francisco and noticed this strange pronunciation of Spanish
personal and place name on television thrust into the middle of English
sentences. I thought it might be an attempt to show a concern for Hispanic
sensibilities - still it seemed patronizing. Otherwise these same
announcers should pronounce Paris and France as they are pronounced in Paris
and France out of respect for Gallic sensibilities.
Kevin O'Donnell
Musca Volitans
"Kevin O'Donnell" <kodo...@gowebway.com> wrote in message
news:8jq8rl$fis$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
I agree that it seems patronizing. It is one thing if the reporter is of
Hispanic descent and pronounces his own name that way -- he has the right to
be correct if incomprehensible as regards his own name -- but quite another
when he is merely trying to grandstand. The same reporter will pronounce
'Vladimir Putin' as 'Vladduhmer Pootin' (rhyming with "you're darn tootin").
BTW, I do notice that these Hispanophiles are clueless about the proper
native pronunciation of "Cuba" (in journalese, Kyoobuh or even Kyoober).
That Spanish intervocalic 'b' flummoxes them every time. ;-)
Regards,
Musca Volitans
Filippo Nieddu
>
> Musca Volitans wrote in message ...
> >
> >It should be noted that this universal principle (;-) is routinely
> >violated by American television reporters who pronounce
> >every Spanish name with the great rhotaic and guttural flourish
> >derived from their two years of high-school Spanish
>
> I live in San Francisco and noticed this strange pronunciation of Spanish
> personal and place name on television thrust into the middle of English
> sentences. I thought it might be an attempt to show a concern for Hispanic
> sensibilities - still it seemed patronizing. Otherwise these same
> announcers should pronounce Paris and France as they are pronounced in Paris
> and France out of respect for Gallic sensibilities.
>
Let's make a deal: in Italy we will try to pronounce correctly
'hamburger' (using your phonetic symbols it is something like
'umboorger' with the 'e' pronounced as in 'bet'), and in change you
Americans will try to say the two 't' in 'spaghetti' (normally
pronounced 'sp-ghedi' with the 'e' pronounced like before).
Sorry for the OT (but what is really 'OT'?) and respects
Filippo Nieddu
J.L. Perez-de-la-Cruz
> ...
> It should be noted that this universal principle (;-) is routinely
> violated by American television reporters who pronounce
> every Spanish name with the great rhotaic and guttural flourish
> break your heart to hear them say 'Nicaragua' (nee-kah-rrrrraaahh-
> ghhwah) (which I hear on the BBC as 'nikuh-rah-gyoo-ah') ;-)
Take a little of your own medicine. Why on hearth
is it all right to pronounce in Spain English names
in English and is it ludicrous to pronounce in San
Francisco Spanish names in Spanish?
---------------------
Jose-Luis Perez-de-la-Cruz
ETSI Informatica
POB 4114
MALAGA 29080 SPAIN
Tlf +34 952 132801
Fax +34 952 131397
--------------------
Dmitry Sheinin
>
> Let's make a deal: in Italy we will try to pronounce correctly
> 'hamburger' (using your phonetic symbols it is something like
> 'umboorger' with the 'e' pronounced as in 'bet'), and in change you
> Americans will try to say the two 't' in 'spaghetti' (normally
> pronounced 'sp-ghedi' with the 'e' pronounced like before).
>
The deal is not worth making. Hamburgers and spaghetti are
popular enough to deserve different versions of pronunciation,
adjusted to particular national phonetics.
The fact that, say, Paris ("should-be" 'paree') or Moscow
('moskva') have English and other versions of their names that
differ from the originals is evidence of significance of the
cities, which went beyond their national boundaries, not of
anything like neglect or a lack of consideration.
Dmitry Sheinin