Pronunciation of hr and chr in Czech?
Ruud Harmsen
like to ask in a wider audience:
In words that start with "hr" in the Czech language, is there a [h] in
the pronuncaition, or a [x]?
Is written ch pronounced [x]?
Does that mean there is an audible difference between hr and chr?
Examples words; hra=game, hrad=castle, chr'am=temple, chrlit=spit.
Is the situation the same or similar in Slovak?
--
Ruud Harmsen - http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/
Henk Metselaar
>Below is a question that arose in nl.taal, and which I now know would
>like to ask in a wider audience:
>
>In words that start with "hr" in the Czech language, is there a [h] in
>the pronuncaition, or a [x]?
>Is written ch pronounced [x]?
>Does that mean there is an audible difference between hr and chr?
>Examples words; hra=game, hrad=castle, chr'am=temple, chrlit=spit.
>
>Is the situation the same or similar in Slovak?
I asked an internet friend from Prague. He likens ch to Chinese h.
He can't recall differences with Slovak from watching movies, so that's
probably very close.
hra you pronounce with h like hot and r like rat.
Not coming from a phonetic expert, but I still hope it helps.
kale
John Fisher
> In words that start with "hr" in the Czech language, is there a [h] in
> the pronuncaition, or a [x]?
Not a [x]. It sounds like a breathy onset to me.
> Is written ch pronounced [x]?
Yes. So is <h> sometimes, when next to a voiceless
consonant.
> Does that mean there is an audible difference between hr and chr?
Yes.
> Examples words; hra=game, hrad=castle, chr'am=temple, chrlit=spit.
>
> Is the situation the same or similar in Slovak?
Don't know.
--John
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Metselaar) wrote:
>In de post met nummer <38a91086...@news.knoware.nl>, liet rhar...@knoware.nl (Ruud Harmsen) ons het volgende weten:
>>Below is a question that arose in nl.taal, and which I now know would
>>like to ask in a wider audience:
>>
>>In words that start with "hr" in the Czech language, is there a [h] in
>>the pronuncaition, or a [x]?
>>Is written ch pronounced [x]?
>>Does that mean there is an audible difference between hr and chr?
>>Examples words; hra=game, hrad=castle, chr'am=temple, chrlit=spit.
>>
>>Is the situation the same or similar in Slovak?
>
>I asked an internet friend from Prague. He likens ch to Chinese h.
>He can't recall differences with Slovak from watching movies, so that's
>probably very close.
>hra you pronounce with h like hot and r like rat.
Sort of, except that "h" is voiced, and "r" is a rolled or
flapped /r/ (not an alveolar or retroflex or "bunched" continuant
as in English).
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
m...@wxs.nl |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Michal Boleslav Mechura
(=lake). English doesn't have this sound, the nearest it has is "kh". German
has this sound. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, the sound is usually
denoted as "x".
"h" is a "h", no change from the English here.
Now to your questions:
> In words that start with "hr" in the Czech language, is there a [h] in
> the pronuncaition, or a [x]?
There is a clear "h", followed by a clear "r".
> Is written ch pronounced [x]?
Yes. See above.
Ciao,
Michal
--
Michal Boleslav Mechura
m...@indigo.ie, mb...@student.open.ac.uk
Ruud Harmsen <rhar...@knoware.nl> wrote in message
news:38a91086...@news.knoware.nl...
> Below is a question that arose in nl.taal, and which I now know would
> like to ask in a wider audience:
>
> In words that start with "hr" in the Czech language, is there a [h] in
> the pronuncaition, or a [x]?
> Is written ch pronounced [x]?
> Does that mean there is an audible difference between hr and chr?
> Examples words; hra=game, hrad=castle, chr'am=temple, chrlit=spit.
>
> Is the situation the same or similar in Slovak?
>
Hana Bizek
>
> "ch" is always pronounced as in the Scottish (and Irish) word "loch"
> (=lake). English doesn't have this sound, the nearest it has is "kh". German
> has this sound. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, the sound is usually
> denoted as "x".
>
> "h" is a "h", no change from the English here.
>
> Now to your questions:
>
> > In words that start with "hr" in the Czech language, is there a [h] in
> > the pronuncaition, or a [x]?
> There is a clear "h", followed by a clear "r".
>
> > Is written ch pronounced [x]?
> Yes. See above.
This question stumped me. ch is NOT pronounced as [x], if [x] is the
kind found toward the end of the alphabet as in xyz. However, if [x] is
in the Cyrillic alphabet, then that is indeed the correct pronunciation.
Hana a kostky
Michaela Weberova
Indeed, both the letters 'ch' and 'h' are pronounced. As you may know,
Czech belongs to very phonetic languages as, for example, Finnish or
Japanese. Therefore 'all' the letters are always pronounced, although it
may sound very strange. ;o)
'hr' - you read 'h' as in 'hotel' or 'Henry'; 'r' you roll - as in
Scottish English, or other Slavic language.
'chr' - you read 'ch' just like Dutch 'g' - as in 'Gouda' or 'van Gogh'
etc.; and 'r' just like above.
The pronunciation in Slovak is very similar indeed.
I hope this may help! :o)
Michaela
Ruud Harmsen
>> > In words that start with "hr" in the Czech language, is there a [h] in
>> > the pronuncaition, or a [x]?
>>
Hana Bizek <hbi...@ameritech.net>:
>This question stumped me. ch is NOT pronounced as [x], if [x] is the
>kind found toward the end of the alphabet as in xyz. However, if [x] is
>in the Cyrillic alphabet, then that is indeed the correct pronunciation.
Sorry, I may have been unclear about this. I meant x not as an
alphabetic symbol, but as a fonetic symbol. The ch of German (and
Dutch) "nacht", and as in Modern Greek "nichta". And as you say, also
the sound spelled X in Cyrillic alphabets.
Hana Bizek
>
> Hi Ruud,
>
> Indeed, both the letters 'ch' and 'h' are pronounced. As you may know,
> Czech belongs to very phonetic languages as, for example, Finnish or
> Japanese. Therefore 'all' the letters are always pronounced, although it
> may sound very strange. ;o)
I agree. And in a sentence like STRC PRST SKRZ KRK you likewise
pronounce all letters. :-)
Hana a kostky
>
> 'hr' - you read 'h' as in 'hotel' or 'Henry'; 'r' you roll - as in
> Scottish English, or other Slavic language.
>
> 'chr' - you read 'ch' just like Dutch 'g' - as in 'Gouda' or 'van Gogh'
> etc.; and 'r' just like above.
>
> The pronunciation in Slovak is very similar indeed.
>
> I hope this may help! :o)
>
> Michaela
>
> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
> > Below is a question that arose in nl.taal, and which I now know would
> > like to ask in a wider audience:
> >
> > In words that start with "hr" in the Czech language, is there a [h] in
> > the pronuncaition, or a [x]?
> > Is written ch pronounced [x]?
> > Does that mean there is an audible difference between hr and chr?
> > Examples words; hra=game, hrad=castle, chr'am=temple, chrlit=spit.
> >
> > Is the situation the same or similar in Slovak?
> >
Robert Hubert
all these words?
"Hana Bizek" <hbi...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:38AADA...@ameritech.net...
Hana Bizek
This is one goodie of Czech pronunciation: the language is phonetic and
it has a tendency to cluster together consonants. The above sentencxe
has no wovrels.
Anotrher goodie which makes Czwch easy is their r with a diacritical
mark (hacek). This sound is very rare. Let me extend the above sentence
to
Fort vzkrikl: "Strc prst skrz krk!" The rs in the first two words have
haceks
Hana a kostky
Arwel Parry
<hbi...@ameritech.net> writes
>This is one goodie of Czech pronunciation: the language is phonetic and
>it has a tendency to cluster together consonants. The above sentencxe
>has no wovrels.
>Anotrher goodie which makes Czwch easy is their r with a diacritical
>mark (hacek). This sound is very rare. Let me extend the above sentence
>to
>Fort vzkrikl: "Strc prst skrz krk!" The rs in the first two words have
>haceks
>Hana a kostky
Most English speakers will probably only have encountered the sound of
r-hacek in the name of the composer Antonin Dvorak. It was only once I
visited Prague that I realised that I'd been pronouncing the man's
surname correctly but mispronouncing his first name wrongly all my life
-- it is, of course, Antonín!
Incidentally, I have to confess to being a little confused by r-hacek --
it appears in "trida", but to my ears when the announcement is being
made on the Metro that the next stop is "Narodni trida" I can't hear the
hacek, just an ordinary r. Is this my hearing going with age, or is the
pronunciation of r-hacek inconsistent in Prague?
--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/
Patrick Chew
Hana Bizek wrote:
> Fort vzkrikl: "Strc prst skrz krk!" The rs in the first two words have haceks
> Hana a kostky
Really? When I learned this (even the words for 'stick(1)' and
'finger') <strc^> and <prst> didn't have hacheks over the r's... has
there been a change? ("strc^ prst skrz krk" is how I learned it.)
cheers,
-Patrick
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
The reference was to "for^t" (don't know what that means) and
"vzkr^ikl" ("cried out").
Hans-Christian Holm
Hans-Christian Holm <hch...@notam.uio.no> wrote in message
news:88n0k7$1t9$1...@readme.uio.no...
>
> Czech h is pronounced like the
> English h.
Sorry, sorry, sorry! NOT like the English h!
Hans-Christian
Hans-Christian Holm
Arwel Parry <ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:CCjQDOA9...@cartref.demon.co.uk...
>
> Incidentally, I have to confess to being a little confused by r-hacek --
> it appears in "trida", but to my ears when the announcement is being
> made on the Metro that the next stop is "Narodni trida" I can't hear the
> hacek, just an ordinary r. Is this my hearing going with age, or is the
> pronunciation of r-hacek inconsistent in Prague?
The r with haczek is diffucult to pronounce even for the Czechs. I've heard
that about 20% of native Czech speakers can't pronounce it!
Hans-Christian
Michal Boleslav Mechura
> it appears in "trida", but to my ears when the announcement is being
> made on the Metro that the next stop is "Narodni trida" I can't hear the
> hacek, just an ordinary r. Is this my hearing going with age, or is the
> pronunciation of r-hacek inconsistent in Prague?
There is no dialect or accent involved in the pronounciation of the letter
"r^" whatsoever.
There are actually two ways to pronounce the letter "r^" in Czech: broad and
slender. Most native speakers are not aware of the fact that there are two
ways. It comes natural to them.
The slender pronounciation is what you heard in the Metro announcement. The
slender "r^" usually follows slender consonants like "t", "k", "s" and so
on. The sound of the slender "r^" is similar, if not identical, to the sound
of the English "r" is words like "tree". Some examples of Czech words that
have the slender "r^": tr^ida (class, avenue), str^eda (Wednesday), kr^ida
(chalk), pookr^at (to cheep up).
The broad sound is quite unique to the Czech language and it is very
difficult to pronounce, even for some native speakers. The broad sound
usually follows broad consonants like "g", "d" "z", and all vowels. Some
examples of Czech words that have the broad "r^": dr^evo (wood), dver^e
(door), zr^idka (rarely).
Hope this clears up the clouds a bit.
Michal
A self-proclaimed linguist :)
Thomas Martin Widmann
By "slender" you mean "voiceless", and by "broad" you mean "voiced",
I presume?
/Thomas
--
Thomas M Widmann | Master's Student | Programmer | Uni-parken 8, 2. v.333
vira...@daimi.au.dk|Ling. & Comp. Sci.| Stibo DS | DK-8000 Ĺrhus C, Danio
+45 21 67 61 27 |Aarhus Universitet|t...@ccieurope.com | President/DK-TUG
<URL:http://www.daimi.au.dk/~viralbus> | +45 87 33 44 65 / TłONF/TĹGEKAMMERET
Hana Bizek
>
> > Incidentally, I have to confess to being a little confused by r-hacek --
> > it appears in "trida", but to my ears when the announcement is being
> > made on the Metro that the next stop is "Narodni trida" I can't hear the
> > hacek, just an ordinary r. Is this my hearing going with age, or is the
> > pronunciation of r-hacek inconsistent in Prague?
>
> There is no dialect or accent involved in the pronounciation of the letter
> "r^" whatsoever.
>
> There are actually two ways to pronounce the letter "r^" in Czech: broad and
> slender. Most native speakers are not aware of the fact that there are two
> ways. It comes natural to them.
>
> The slender pronounciation is what you heard in the Metro announcement. The
> slender "r^" usually follows slender consonants like "t", "k", "s" and so
> on. The sound of the slender "r^" is similar, if not identical, to the sound
> of the English "r" is words like "tree". Some examples of Czech words that
> have the slender "r^": tr^ida (class, avenue), str^eda (Wednesday), kr^ida
> (chalk), pookr^at (to cheep up).
>
> The broad sound is quite unique to the Czech language and it is very
> difficult to pronounce, even for some native speakers. The broad sound
> usually follows broad consonants like "g", "d" "z", and all vowels. Some
> examples of Czech words that have the broad "r^": dr^evo (wood), dver^e
> (door), zr^idka (rarely).
>
>
> Michal
> A self-proclaimed linguist :)
Well, Michal, I am not a linquist, merely a physicist and a
3-dimensional Rubik's cube designer. But r~ or r with a hacek,is my
favorite sound. :-) The 2 words I partiucularly recommend are:
c~tyr~spr~ez~i', with hacek on c, both rs and z, and the last letter i
is long. The second favorite word is c~tyr~r~ad, with hacek on c and the
two neighboring rs. Enjoy!
Hana a kostky
Hana Bizek
>
> Arwel Parry <ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:CCjQDOA9...@cartref.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > it appears in "trida", but to my ears when the announcement is being
> > made on the Metro that the next stop is "Narodni trida" I can't hear the
> > hacek, just an ordinary r. Is this my hearing going with age, or is the
> > pronunciation of r-hacek inconsistent in Prague?
>
> that about 20% of native Czech speakers can't pronounce it!
>
> Hans-Christian
This sound is a consonant. As such, it can be clustered together with
other consonants. When that hzppens, you enter a pronunciation paradise.
Hana a kostky
Richard
>There are actually two ways to pronounce the letter "r^" in Czech: broad
and
>The slender pronounciation .......>
>The broad sound.................
NO, there is ONLY ONE sound of "r^" in all the words with this letter in
the Czech language. By the pronouciation of this sound you can easilily
find who is a native born Czech and who's not. It's very difficult to master
this sound to satisfy Czech ears. Richard
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
Michal is right. There is one phoneme /r^/ with two allophones,
a voiced and a voiceless one. Both allophones are of course
widely believed to be extremely difficult to master.
Richard
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote in message
<5tp0bs0ue1dcrt1td...@4ax.com>...
If you mean Czech, you are wrong! Again - one only! Do you know about
another language with "r^"? May it be there it is? Let me know, please.
Richard
Hana Bizek
>
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:57:02 GMT, "Richard"
> <Baz...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >>There are actually two ways to pronounce the letter "r^" in Czech: broad
> >and
> >>slender. ......
> >>The slender pronounciation .......>
> >>The broad sound.................
> >
> >
> >NO, there is ONLY ONE sound of "r^" in all the words with this letter in
> >the Czech language. By the pronouciation of this sound you can easilily
> >find who is a native born Czech and who's not. It's very difficult to master
> >this sound to satisfy Czech ears. Richard
>
> Michal is right. There is one phoneme /r^/ with two allophones,
> a voiced and a voiceless one. Both allophones are of course
> widely believed to be extremely difficult to master.
>
language that difficult?
Hana a kostky
Arwel Parry
<m...@indigo.ie> writes
>> Incidentally, I have to confess to being a little confused by r-hacek --
>> it appears in "trida", but to my ears when the announcement is being
>> made on the Metro that the next stop is "Narodni trida" I can't hear the
>> hacek, just an ordinary r. Is this my hearing going with age, or is the
>> pronunciation of r-hacek inconsistent in Prague?
>
>"r^" whatsoever.
>
>ways. It comes natural to them.
>
>The slender pronounciation is what you heard in the Metro announcement. The
>slender "r^" usually follows slender consonants like "t", "k", "s" and so
>on. The sound of the slender "r^" is similar, if not identical, to the sound
>of the English "r" is words like "tree". Some examples of Czech words that
>have the slender "r^": tr^ida (class, avenue), str^eda (Wednesday), kr^ida
>(chalk), pookr^at (to cheep up).
>
>The broad sound is quite unique to the Czech language and it is very
>difficult to pronounce, even for some native speakers. The broad sound
>usually follows broad consonants like "g", "d" "z", and all vowels. Some
>examples of Czech words that have the broad "r^": dr^evo (wood), dver^e
>(door), zr^idka (rarely).
>
>Hope this clears up the clouds a bit.
>
>Michal
>A self-proclaimed linguist :)
That clears up a lot!
De^kuji, Michal.
Richard
Arwel Parry wrote in message <1ofr0WAd...@cartref.demon.co.uk>...
No way! Only one "r^" sound ,and absolutly the very same one!
Tr^iska,kr^ida,dr^revo,dver^e,zr^idka - all "r^" are with the same sound !
Richard
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<hbi...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>
>> Michal is right. There is one phoneme /r^/ with two allophones,
>> a voiced and a voiceless one. Both allophones are of course
>> widely believed to be extremely difficult to master.
>>
>What are allophones? Never heard of them.
Positional variants of the same phoneme. For instance in Czech,
[dz^] is usually an allophone of the phoneme /c^/ (as in <léc^ba>
"cure", phonologically /le:c^ba/, phonetically ['le:dz^ba]).
>And why do you considser my language that difficult?
Actually, when I said "widely believed to be", what I was trying
to convey was that I don't think so.
Richard
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:23:38 -0600, Hana Bizek
><hbi...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>>
>>> Michal is right. There is one phoneme /r^/ with two allophones,
>>> a voiced and a voiceless one. Both allophones are of course
>>> widely believed to be extremely difficult to master.
>>>
>>What are allophones? Never heard of them.
>
>Positional variants of the same phoneme. For instance in Czech,
>[dz^] is usually an allophone of the phoneme /c^/ (as in <léc^ba>
>"cure", phonologically /le:c^ba/, phonetically ['le:dz^ba]).
>
Again NOT - you are talking lokal pronounciation or dialect - not pure,
correct Czech. Le:c^ba is correctly pronounced with no "d" before "c^". If
you pronounce "r^" the right way, it must be always of the same sound. The
best of the Czech language you can get probably taping some of good
television narators and compare their voices with spectral analyzer. I can
not judge Travnicek and the reason,why he is saying so, but if you are
listening to good Czech you will hear only one sound of "r^"; what's changed
is the sound of consonant before it,dragging you in beliving the "r^' sound
changed, but it didn't, it's impossible. My Czech teacher used to say,
correct Czech was taken from area South of Turnov - city North from Prague,
close to Liberec. One of those who wrote that Czech was Karolina Svetla,of
course long time dead. But I don't know if the Czech there is still of the
same pronounciation as hundred years ago.
Sure,you do not have to belive me, and stay with Travnicek, who is probably
the highest authority, but the spectral analysis will help. And once and for
ever - if you are not born Czech, you don't pronounce "r^" the right way.
How can I know? - have three kids 14,12 and 10 - no one is doing well in
correctly pronounced Czech, and they are trying hard,the same as kids of my
friends. Richard
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<Baz...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote in message ...
>>For instance in Czech,
>>[dz^] is usually an allophone of the phoneme /c^/ (as in <léc^ba>
>>"cure", phonologically /le:c^ba/, phonetically ['le:dz^ba]).
>
>Again NOT - you are talking lokal pronounciation or dialect - not pure,
>correct Czech.
Well of course, I'm writing in sci.lang.
>Le:c^ba is correctly pronounced with no "d" before "c^".
Indeed not. Léc^ba is pronounced with /c^/ voiced (= [dz^]).
The rule in Czech is regressive assimilation (hezký > [heski:],
kde > [gde]), *except* in the case of /r^/, where the
assimilation is progressive.
Richard
Are you sure it's Czech? Yes,there is a regress, but in Czech slang.
Now listen: Di s tou Tvou cestinou doprdele. Ty se to stejne nenaucis; a
jesli jo, tak se Ti stejne vsichni budou smat, ze si slapes na jazyk,vole.
.. hacky a carky si dopln sam,jestli to zvaldes..... This is kind of Czech
i know, is not right, but selfexplanatory good.
Did I bite the hook????? Richard
Ruud Harmsen
Holm" <hch...@notam.uio.no> in nl.taal:
>> 'chr' - you read 'ch' just like Dutch 'g' - as in 'Gouda' or 'van Gogh'
>> etc.; and 'r' just like above.
>
>Not exactly. These sounds seem to cause an incredible amount of confusion!
>This should be correct:
>
>Czech ch and Dutch ch are unvoiced fricatives, more or less like German ch
>in -ach.
>
>Czech h and Dutch g are the voiced counterparts, but in certain positions,
>such as word-final, they are unvoiced. Czech h is pronounced like the
>English h.
Correct, except that the degree to which Dutch ch and g ([x] and [Q])
are distinguished is not the same with all speakers of the language;
some (many, maybe) don't distinguish them at all. Same with s/z and
f/v. This means here a single language doesn't have a consistent
phoneme model, because those _with_ the distinction _can_
differentiate minimal pairs with them, even though these pairs are
rare.
More info:
http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/articles/nedsound.htm
http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/articles/fonetics/fonetfrm.htm
http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/articles/fonetics/cxch.htm
http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/articles/fonetics/fvw.htm
http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/articles/szfvgch.htm
Richard
take the pool??? Richard
Richard
pronounced in any Czech word the same way!!
.Pojdte a vsadte se: "r^", jako ve slove "reka" se vyslovuje stejne ve
vsech ceskych slovech! Pool ,jestli to neodmitne,.je na Ladu Borovicku.
Richard
Ruud Harmsen
Holm" <hch...@notam.uio.no> in nl.taal:
>
>Hans-Christian Holm <hch...@notam.uio.no> wrote in message
>news:88n0k7$1t9$1...@readme.uio.no...
>>
>> Czech h is pronounced like the
>> English h.
>
>Sorry, sorry, sorry! NOT like the English h!
>
>Hans-Christian
So, like what is it pronounced?
Hans-Christian Holm
From: Ruud Harmsen <rhar...@knoware.nl>
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.czecho-slovak,nl.taal
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2000 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: Pronunciation of hr and chr in Czech?
> Op Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:07:24 +0100 schreef of citeerde "Hans-Christian
> Holm" <hch...@notam.uio.no> in nl.taal:
>
> Correct, except that the degree to which Dutch ch and g ([x] and [Q])
> are distinguished is not the same with all speakers of the language;
> some (many, maybe) don't distinguish them at all. Same with s/z and
> f/v. This means here a single language doesn't have a consistent
> phoneme model, because those _with_ the distinction _can_
> differentiate minimal pairs with them, even though these pairs are
> rare.
I can't disagree with that.
> More info:
> http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/articles/nedsound.htm
> http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/articles/fonetics/fonetfrm.htm
> http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/articles/fonetics/cxch.htm
> http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/articles/fonetics/fvw.htm
> http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/articles/szfvgch.htm
Thank you, I been looking for something like this, I've found it quite hard
to find detailed descriptions of Dutch pronunciation. Great stuff, but I'd
like to see at bit more detail on regional differences, especially for the r
sound. Most books etc. say Dutch r is simply a trilled r, but in my
experience it usually isn't!
Hans-Christian
Hans-Christian Holm
Ruud Harmsen <rhar...@knoware.nl> wrote in message
news:38a91086...@news.knoware.nl...
> Below is a question that arose in nl.taal, and which I now know would
> like to ask in a wider audience:
>
> In words that start with "hr" in the Czech language, is there a [h] in
> the pronuncaition, or a [x]?
> Is written ch pronounced [x]?
> Does that mean there is an audible difference between hr and chr?
> Examples words; hra=game, hrad=castle, chr'am=temple, chrlit=spit.
Did anyone actually give an answer to this? Well, here's my attempt:
hr is {voiced glottal fricative}{voiced tap}
chr is {unvoiced velar fricative}{unvoiced tap}
(I'm not quite sure, r may be a trill)
> Is the situation the same or similar in Slovak?
As far as I know.
Hans-Christian Holm
Richard
track now. Yes,it's exactly as you are saying . Richard
Ruud Harmsen
Holm" <hch...@notam.uio.no> in nl.taal:
>Czech ch and Dutch ch are unvoiced fricatives, more or less like German ch
>in -ach.
>
>Czech h and Dutch g are the voiced counterparts, but in certain positions,
>such as word-final, they are unvoiced. Czech h is pronounced like the
>English h.
So this means Czech ch is phonetic [x] and h is phonetic [Q]? Then h
is indeed very different than [h]. I'm getting rather confused over
this.
Ruud Harmsen
<Baz...@worldnet.att.net> in nl.taal:
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote, about allophones :
>>Positional variants of the same phoneme. For instance in Czech,
>>[dz^] is usually an allophone of the phoneme /c^/ (as in <léc^ba>
>>"cure", phonologically /le:c^ba/, phonetically ['le:dz^ba]).
>
>Again NOT - you are talking lokal pronounciation or dialect - not pure,
>correct Czech. Le:c^ba is correctly pronounced with no "d" before "c^".
That's not what Miguel said. I think he said or meant to say that
léc^ba is pronounced /le:tSba/ phonemicly, but that due to
assimilation of the voiceless /tS/ (written c^) to the voiced b, it
may become [dZ], which is the voiced counterpart of [tS]. So there's
no insertion of a d, only a t is turned into a d.
>Travnicek and the reason,why he is saying so, but if you are
>listening to good Czech you will hear only one sound of "r^"; what's changed
>is the sound of consonant before it,dragging you in beliving the "r^' sound
>changed, but it didn't, it's impossible.
I don't think assimilation is ever impossible. It is true that the
extent to which it happens, or is due to happen, is not the same in
every language. So it is certainly possible that Czech doesn't have
much assimilation. That is what the discussion here should be about.
Remember that assimilation can be difficult to notice, especially by
native speakers of a language, because they follow the allophonic
rules of their language so automatically. Denial by native speakers is
an often occurring phenomenon with things like this.
Holoholona
Baz...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote in message ...
>><hbi...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Michal is right. There is one phoneme /r^/ with two allophones,
>>>> a voiced and a voiceless one. Both allophones are of course
>>>> widely believed to be extremely difficult to master.
>>>>
>>>What are allophones? Never heard of them.
>>
>>[dz^] is usually an allophone of the phoneme /c^/ (as in <léc^ba>
>>"cure", phonologically /le:c^ba/, phonetically ['le:dz^ba]).
>>
>
>
>Again NOT - you are talking lokal pronounciation or dialect - not pure,
>correct Czech.
Richard, you may not know this, but you are cross-posting to sci.lang, a forum
for, mostly, descriptive linguistics. Among linguists, there is no such thing
as "pure, correct Czech" or "pure" any other language, despite what your
grammar school teachers may have taught you.
Your question on what an allophone is indicates that you are not familiar with
the basic terms and concepts of linguistics. There's nothing wrong with that,
of course, but if you wish to argue knowledgeably, you might want to become
more familiar with the basics of the subject first.
All languages have phonemes, and allophones of those phonemes. Native
speakers often don't recognize the allophones of their langauges' phonemes
because the nature of allophones is that they don't significantly alter
comprehension and thus are irrelevent to day to day conversation.
maluhia,
Holoholona
Hans-Christian Holm
As I wrote elsewhere, I missed a very important word above: English h [h] is
normally NOT the same as Czech h. Here we go again:
h is basically voiced, but allophones are:
voiced: [h"] (voiced glottal fricative, not velar)
unvoiced: [x] (unvoiced velar fricative)
ch is basically unvoiced, but allophones are:
unvoiced: [x]
voiced: [Q] (voiced velar fricative)
Also note that I never said that these sounds are the same as the Dutch
sounds, but similar, my first posting was meant to show this and the
symmetry. As we all know, Dutch has [x] and [Q].
Hans-Christian
Hana Bizek
Hezky mluvis tou slangovou cestinou, Richarde, jen co je pravda. Ja s
tou cestinou pudu doprdele, ale az po tobe, milacku, panum davam
prednost. :-) So, there is an example of a Czech exchange. Some of you
linguists may wish to analyze it.
Hana a kostky
Prager
<hch...@notam.uio.no> wrote:
> Arwel Parry <ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:CCjQDOA9...@cartref.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > Incidentally, I have to confess to being a little confused by r-hacek --
> > it appears in "trida", but to my ears when the announcement is being
> > made on the Metro that the next stop is "Narodni trida" I can't hear the
> > hacek, just an ordinary r. Is this my hearing going with age, or is the
> > pronunciation of r-hacek inconsistent in Prague?
>
> The r with haczek is diffucult to pronounce even for the Czechs. I've heard
> that about 20% of native Czech speakers can't pronounce it!
>
> Hans-Christian
I was trying to stay away from this thread, but...it is tempting. :)
Yes, some Czechs can't pronounce the r^ right and we all can hear it.
Frankly, r^ can't be like some another variation of 'r' because we do
have words with the same spelling, but the 'r^' and 'r' specify a
totally different meaning, like in the words: 'r^ada' (a line, a row)
and 'rada' (an advice). So, when someone can't pronounce the 'r^' we
have to pay closer attention to understand what he is talking about.
No matter how fast people speak, we still hear that difference, but it
is a great fun when Czechs get drunk because in this state of
excitement, we can't pronounce the 'r^' very well, and as we try...
that's the only sound you might hear because that's what every drunk
concentrates on... to say that 'r^' and prove to everybody around that
he is not drunk, of course.
Prager
who can still pronounce the 'r^'
Prager
<hch...@notam.uio.no> wrote:
> Hans-Christian Holm <hch...@notam.uio.no> wrote in message
> news:88n0k7$1t9$1...@readme.uio.no...
> >
> > Czech h is pronounced like the
> > English h.
>
> Sorry, sorry, sorry! NOT like the English h!
English 'h' is deeper.
> Hans-Christian
Prager
> > Incidentally, I have to confess to being a little confused by r-hacek --
> > it appears in "trida", but to my ears when the announcement is being
> > made on the Metro that the next stop is "Narodni trida" I can't hear the
> > hacek, just an ordinary r. Is this my hearing going with age, or is the
> > pronunciation of r-hacek inconsistent in Prague?
>
> There is no dialect or accent involved in the pronounciation of the letter
> "r^" whatsoever.
>
> There are actually two ways to pronounce the letter "r^" in Czech: broad and
> slender. Most native speakers are not aware of the fact that there are two
> ways. It comes natural to them.
>
> The slender pronounciation is what you heard in the Metro announcement. The
> slender "r^" usually follows slender consonants like "t", "k", "s" and so
> on. The sound of the slender "r^" is similar, if not identical, to the sound
> of the English "r" is words like "tree". Some examples of Czech words that
> have the slender "r^": tr^ida (class, avenue), str^eda (Wednesday), kr^ida
> (chalk), pookr^at (to cheep up).
??????? I have no idea what you are talking about, particularly in
these words. We have slander with 'i' and 'y' (or 't' and 'd') which
very often sound the same, but not 'r' and 'r^' ...in this case, your
'tr^iska' would be pronounced as 'triska' = 'tryska', and these are two
quite different words. Sure, you can do it with 'str^eda' = 'streda',
but we all would know that it is in Slovak, not Czech.
> The broad sound is quite unique to the Czech language and it is very
> difficult to pronounce, even for some native speakers. The broad sound
> usually follows broad consonants like "g", "d" "z", and all vowels. Some
> examples of Czech words that have the broad "r^": dr^evo (wood), dver^e
> (door), zr^idka (rarely).
Why would 'kr^ida' have that "slender" pronounciation and 'zr^idka'
would be -- a broad sound? What would cause the difference?
Prager
>
> Hope this clears up the clouds a bit.
>
> Michal
> A self-proclaimed linguist :)
>
> --
> Michal Boleslav Mechura
> m...@indigo.ie, mb...@student.open.ac.uk
Prager
Richard <Baz...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >There are actually two ways to pronounce the letter "r^" in Czech: broad
> and
> >slender. ......
> >The slender pronounciation .......>
> >The broad sound.................
>
>
> NO, there is ONLY ONE sound of "r^" in all the words with this letter in
> the Czech language. By the pronouciation of this sound you can easilily
> find who is a native born Czech and who's not. It's very difficult to master
> this sound to satisfy Czech ears. Richard
You are 100 percent correct.
Prager
Prager
Carrasquer Vidal <m...@wxs.nl> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:57:02 GMT, "Richard"
> <Baz...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >>There are actually two ways to pronounce the letter "r^" in Czech: broad
> >and
> >>slender. ......
> >>The slender pronounciation .......>
> >>The broad sound.................
> >
> >
> >NO, there is ONLY ONE sound of "r^" in all the words with this letter in
> >the Czech language. By the pronouciation of this sound you can easilily
> >find who is a native born Czech and who's not. It's very difficult to master
> >this sound to satisfy Czech ears. Richard
>
> Michal is right. There is one phoneme /r^/ with two allophones,
> a voiced and a voiceless one. Both allophones are of course
> widely believed to be extremely difficult to master.
There is only one 'r^'... Even if we speak fast or mutter, we all do
hear that sound 'r^' there, but I don't know about Amsterdam. :)
Prager
Prager
<ar...@cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >The broad sound is quite unique to the Czech language and it is very
> >difficult to pronounce, even for some native speakers. The broad sound
> >usually follows broad consonants like "g", "d" "z", and all vowels. Some
> >examples of Czech words that have the broad "r^": dr^evo (wood), dver^e
> >(door), zr^idka (rarely).
> >
> >Hope this clears up the clouds a bit.
> >
> >Michal
> >A self-proclaimed linguist :)
>
> That clears up a lot!
>
> De^kuji, Michal.
It is confusing things a lot, provided we are talking about the Czech
language. Sorry.
Prager
Prager
Carrasquer Vidal <m...@wxs.nl> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:23:38 -0600, Hana Bizek
> <hbi...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> >>
> >> Michal is right. There is one phoneme /r^/ with two allophones,
> >> a voiced and a voiceless one. Both allophones are of course
> >> widely believed to be extremely difficult to master.
> >>
> >What are allophones? Never heard of them.
>
> Positional variants of the same phoneme. For instance in Czech,
> [dz^] is usually an allophone of the phoneme /c^/ (as in <léc^ba>
> "cure", phonologically /le:c^ba/, phonetically ['le:dz^ba]).
Yes, but to teach it this way would cause more confusions because most
words with this 'c^' don't have this 'dz' there. Here are just a small
sample of words where you just can't say it this way: [vi:c^ko] (a
lid), [sa:c^ek] (a bag), [ha:c^ek] (a hook), [prac^ka] (a washing
machine), and many many others.
Prager
Prager
Richard <Baz...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote in message ...
> >On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 17:23:38 -0600, Hana Bizek
> ><hbi...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Michal is right. There is one phoneme /r^/ with two allophones,
> >>> a voiced and a voiceless one. Both allophones are of course
> >>> widely believed to be extremely difficult to master.
> >>>
> >>What are allophones? Never heard of them.
> >
> >Positional variants of the same phoneme. For instance in Czech,
> >[dz^] is usually an allophone of the phoneme /c^/ (as in <léc^ba>
> >"cure", phonologically /le:c^ba/, phonetically ['le:dz^ba]).
> >
>
>
> Again NOT - you are talking lokal pronounciation or dialect - not pure,
> correct Czech. Le:c^ba is correctly pronounced with no "d" before "c^". If
> you pronounce "r^" the right way, it must be always of the same sound. The
> best of the Czech language you can get probably taping some of good
> television narators and compare their voices with spectral analyzer. I can
> not judge Travnicek and the reason,why he is saying so, but if you are
> listening to good Czech you will hear only one sound of "r^"; what's changed
> is the sound of consonant before it,dragging you in beliving the "r^' sound
> changed, but it didn't, it's impossible. My Czech teacher used to say,
> correct Czech was taken from area South of Turnov - city North from Prague,
> close to Liberec. One of those who wrote that Czech was Karolina Svetla,of
> course long time dead. But I don't know if the Czech there is still of the
> same pronounciation as hundred years ago.
> Sure,you do not have to belive me, and stay with Travnicek, who is probably
> the highest authority, but the spectral analysis will help. And once and for
> ever - if you are not born Czech, you don't pronounce "r^" the right way.
> How can I know? - have three kids 14,12 and 10 - no one is doing well in
> correctly pronounced Czech, and they are trying hard,the same as kids of my
> friends. Richard
Richard is right. What Travnicek has said, it doesn't relate to the
QUALITY of 'r^'; sure, in some words it is not so obvious like in
others, but -- once for all, believe me/us when we tell you that we do
always hear it there, or -- we do have to hear it, otherwise we know
right away that we are not dealing with a native Czech.
Prager
Prager
Carrasquer Vidal <m...@wxs.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 05:32:46 GMT, "Richard"
> <Baz...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote in message ...
> >>For instance in Czech,
> >>[dz^] is usually an allophone of the phoneme /c^/ (as in <léc^ba>
> >>"cure", phonologically /le:c^ba/, phonetically ['le:dz^ba]).
> >
> >Again NOT - you are talking lokal pronounciation or dialect - not pure,
> >correct Czech.
>
> Well of course, I'm writing in sci.lang.
>
> >Le:c^ba is correctly pronounced with no "d" before "c^".
>
> Indeed not. Léc^ba is pronounced with /c^/ voiced (= [dz^]).
Yes, [le:c^ba] has that 'dzi:nsi' 'dz' there, but it would be
interesting to figure out why. You know, the original word is not
[le:c^ba], but [le:c^eni:]. That's the proper (and old) Czech word.
This 'lec^ba' has a slight sarcastic tone. Maybe not today, though, but
it had in the past. We have similar words -- where we do alter the
pronounciation. originally, we did it on purpose, it was fun. The
answer you would find in psychology, politics, in our literature. It is
not a linguistic question. I will write some of those words and let's
see if other czechs will agree with me here :) Palba (a music played
very loud), kur^ba (orig: kour^reni, smoking), s^oustac^ka ... okay,
enough! :) Anyway, simply -- when using these words, you exagerate
their pronounciation.
Otherwise, c^ has to be c^, not dz^. Le:c^ba is an exception.
Prager
> The rule in Czech is regressive assimilation (hezký > [heski:],
> kde > [gde]), *except* in the case of /r^/, where the
> assimilation is progressive.
>
>
Prager
<rhar...@knoware.nl> wrote:
> Op Mon, 21 Feb 2000 05:32:46 GMT schreef of citeerde "Richard"
> <Baz...@worldnet.att.net> in nl.taal:
[cut]
> I don't think assimilation is ever impossible. It is true that the
> extent to which it happens, or is due to happen, is not the same in
> every language. So it is certainly possible that Czech doesn't have
> much assimilation. That is what the discussion here should be about.
> Remember that assimilation can be difficult to notice, especially by
> native speakers of a language, because they follow the allophonic
> rules of their language so automatically. Denial by native speakers is
> an often occurring phenomenon with things like this.
Denial is our middle name, assimilation is not an option for us. :)
Prager
Richard
I'm very sorry if I cross-post somwhere else (Holoh...@nowhere.com), but I
didn't know about it and I even didn't mean to do it. But what I do know is
the Czech language, no matter if you describe it with allophones or other
phenomenos. And you are correct, if you say I'm not familiar with these
terms - by the way it was not my question,what the allophone is, I really
don't care too much. What am I questionning is your attitude as linguistics
towards this problem. Being by proffesion communications technician I know,
the only correct method to be sure how a signal (sound) is transmitted
(pronounced),is to analyze it on spectral analyzer. If you won't do it, who
else?
Accidently we were discussing the "r^", the most difficult soud in ,as I say
wrongly, "pure or correct Czech" , mening the pronounced Czech language
without too much of local dialect - something like Standard English as close
as I can think about. What I was saying, you know, and I won't repeat it
again. I asked my wife, who as a child spent two years btw. 6 and 8 of age
in a special afternoon class every week, where she learn, how to pronounce
this "r^" soud correct, because as a young child she misspelled it greatly.
She said the same in accord. She mastered the sound excellent.
You can have a beautifl example of non native born, Czech speaking person at
your home to study: rent the original Czech version of a movie "Signum
Laudis." The protagonist is a Slovak born actor, who plays a Czech soldier.
If you can recognize his non Czech descent - excellent! If not, it's still
good, because his pronounciation goes as close to Czech as a non Czech
could. The hint is the sound of "r^" a "z^".
Saying hello to all of you, to Miguel too,promissing I won't bother you
again if you will not post you problems on CZ soc-culture NG any more. Your
Richard
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<Pra...@the-big-country.com> wrote:
>In article <fMXr4.151$762...@news.indigo.ie>, Michal Boleslav Mechura
><m...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>> The broad sound is quite unique to the Czech language and it is very
>> difficult to pronounce, even for some native speakers. The broad sound
>> usually follows broad consonants like "g", "d" "z", and all vowels. Some
>> examples of Czech words that have the broad "r^": dr^evo (wood), dver^e
>> (door), zr^idka (rarely).
>
>Why would 'kr^ida' have that "slender" pronounciation and 'zr^idka'
>would be -- a broad sound? What would cause the difference?
The preceding consonant. The terms "slender" and "broad" are
confusing, especially since in English I have only seen them used
in reference to Irish slender (palatalized, "soft") and broad
(non-palatalized, "hard") consonants. The usual terms in English
are "voiced" and "voiceless/unvoiced" (dz'wie,czny i
bezdz'wie,czny in Polish: how do you say that in Czech?).
I would say that the voiced and unvoiced variants of /r^/ are
both unique to Czech, as they differ only in whether the vocal
chords are vibrating or not. The variants are automatic
depending on the voicedness or not of the preceding consonant. I
wasn't aware of the difference either, until Michal BM pointed it
out in the message above. I looked it up, and indeed every Czech
grammar confirmed that there was a voiceless allophone after
voiceless consonants and in absolute final position. The same
thing must have formerly been the case in Polish, where <rz> is
now pronounced /z^/ (historically /r^/ as in Czech and Slovak).
After a voiceless consonant, however, <rz> is pronounced /s^/
(przykl/ad, krzew, trzy).
Ruud Harmsen
Holm" <hch...@notam.uio.no> in nl.taal:
>Thank you, I been looking for something like this, I've found it quite hard
>to find detailed descriptions of Dutch pronunciation. Great stuff, but I'd
>like to see at bit more detail on regional differences, especially for the r
>sound. Most books etc. say Dutch r is simply a trilled r, but in my
>experience it usually isn't!
You're right, Dutch r is very complicated. A distinction must be made
between r starting a word or after another consonsonant, and r at the
end of a word or before a consonant. The second kind in many regions
(not Belgium and southern parts of the Netherlands) is vocalic, some
sort of schwa, or (modern tendency) retroflexion, similar to what
happens in German, or in American English (even though these have very
different pronounciations).
In the other position, and between vowels, both llingual and uvular
r's can be heard, with many different levels of trill.
Prager
Carrasquer Vidal <m...@wxs.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 02:00:36 GMT, Prager
> <Pra...@the-big-country.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <fMXr4.151$762...@news.indigo.ie>, Michal Boleslav Mechura
> ><m...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> >> The broad sound is quite unique to the Czech language and it is very
> >> difficult to pronounce, even for some native speakers. The broad sound
> >> usually follows broad consonants like "g", "d" "z", and all vowels. Some
> >> examples of Czech words that have the broad "r^": dr^evo (wood), dver^e
> >> (door), zr^idka (rarely).
> >
> >Why would 'kr^ida' have that "slender" pronounciation and 'zr^idka'
> >would be -- a broad sound? What would cause the difference?
>
> The preceding consonant.
Right. I understand this one, but about it later.
The terms "slender" and "broad" are
> confusing, especially since in English I have only seen them used
> in reference to Irish slender (palatalized, "soft") and broad
> (non-palatalized, "hard") consonants. The usual terms in English
> are "voiced" and "voiceless/unvoiced" (dz'wie,czny i
> bezdz'wie,czny in Polish: how do you say that in Czech?).
I think you refer to what we call 'znela' (for voiced) and 'neznela'
(unvoiced), the verbum 'znit' means 'to sound' in English. In this
sense, we have pairs of 'znelych' and 'neznelych', like these:
'g' (znela souhlaska) versus 'k' (neznela souhlaska), 'd' vs 't' and
'z' vs 's'...and so on. The 'z^' we call 'softenning of 'z', 'd^' is
softer 'd', 'c^' is softer 'c'. This is in Czech, but we use Latin
terms as well, but only those who do it as a profession, like my
sister, a professor of the Czech language, although, most of us know
terms like nominativ, dativ, vocativ, etc.
> I would say that the voiced and unvoiced variants of /r^/ are
> both unique to Czech, as they differ only in whether the vocal
> chords are vibrating or not. The variants are automatic
> depending on the voicedness or not of the preceding consonant.
This is exactly the problem. There has to be that reverb, even though,
in some cases, it is not so strong. When you pronounce 't' which you
create right behind the teeth, the 'r^' is created right there, between
the tip of the tongue and the teeth. When you pronounce the 'k' or 'h',
you just can't create the 'r^' the same way; in this case the teeth are
not involved, not even the tip of the tongue. Yes, the 'r^' does sound
differently then, the beginning of it (it is weaker), but it is the
following reverb which is so critical...and which has to be there.
You might hear a different 'r^' after 'st' like in 'str^i:bro'
(silver), it is a frontal 'r^', and the 'r^' after 'k' like in 'kr^en'
(horseradish), but the following reverb is ballancing it, and it has
the same QUALITY. If nothing else, the 'r^' is always different than
'r', and that was the original post when someone didn't hear the 'r^'
in 'tr^i:da', and was mentioning the English 'tree'.
I admit that I have no idea about 'allophones'. If you would tell me
it's the next generation of CellPhones, I would have no reason to doubt
you. I am not subscribed to sci.lang, but to soc.culture.czecho-slovak,
and I have seen some 65 posts here on this subject. It is quite
possible that from the sci point of view you all are right. I used to
approach the Czech from another point of view, being born there and
working for years as a motion picture and theater drama director.
Prager
Ruud Harmsen
<Pra...@the-big-country.com> in nl.taal:
>> Positional variants of the same phoneme. For instance in Czech,
>> [dz^] is usually an allophone of the phoneme /c^/ (as in <léc^ba>
>> "cure", phonologically /le:c^ba/, phonetically ['le:dz^ba]).
>
>Yes, but to teach it this way would cause more confusions because most
>words with this 'c^' don't have this 'dz' there.
It's not a dz. The confusion comes from the spelling here. The t is
included in the c-hacek, but not in ways to write the voiced pendant.
So a [t] turns into [d], [tS] turns into [dZ].
And you are right: teaching assimilation can be confusing, and is
often unnecessary, because the langauge of the foreign learner most
probably also has assimilation, and there is is good chance she does
it automatically too, just like native speakers.
>Here are just a small
>sample of words where you just can't say it this way: [vi:c^ko] (a
>lid), [sa:c^ek] (a bag), [ha:c^ek] (a hook), [prac^ka] (a washing
>machine), and many many others.
all of which have no neighbouring voiced consonant, hence no
assimilation.
Ruud Harmsen
<Pra...@the-big-country.com> in nl.taal:
>> Michal is right. There is one phoneme /r^/ with two allophones,
>> a voiced and a voiceless one. Both allophones are of course
>> widely believed to be extremely difficult to master.
>
>There is only one 'r^'... Even if we speak fast or mutter, we all do
>hear that sound 'r^' there, but I don't know about Amsterdam. :)
As I said, assimilations are difficult to hear, especially for native
speakers, because the aren't aware they're doing it.
Hana Bizek
>
> In article <264s4.5909$tk7.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Baz...@worldnet.att.net says...
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Michal is right. There is one phoneme /r^/ with two allophones,
> >>>> a voiced and a voiceless one. Both allophones are of course
> >>>> widely believed to be extremely difficult to master.
> >>>>
> >>
> >>[dz^] is usually an allophone of the phoneme /c^/ (as in <léc^ba>
> >>"cure", phonologically /le:c^ba/, phonetically ['le:dz^ba]).
> >>
> >
> >
> >correct Czech.
>
> for, mostly, descriptive linguistics. Among linguists, there is no such thing
> as "pure, correct Czech" or "pure" any other language, despite what your
> grammar school teachers may have taught you.
>
> Your question on what an allophone is indicates that you are not familiar with
> the basic terms and concepts of linguistics. There's nothing wrong with that,
> of course, but if you wish to argue knowledgeably, you might want to become
> more familiar with the basics of the subject first.
>
linguist. I am a physicist and a 3-dimensional Rubik's cube designer.
But I recognize expertise when I see one. That is why I refrained from
participating in the discussion, but merely read the posts. I never
realized that Czech language is an object of such analysis. To me, it's
just plain old and simple Czech. :-)
Hana a kostky
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<Pra...@the-big-country.com> wrote:
[mcv:]
>> The terms "slender" and "broad" are
>> confusing, especially since in English I have only seen them used
>> in reference to Irish slender (palatalized, "soft") and broad
>> (non-palatalized, "hard") consonants. The usual terms in English
>> are "voiced" and "voiceless/unvoiced" (dz'wie,czny i
>> bezdz'wie,czny in Polish: how do you say that in Czech?).
>
>I think you refer to what we call 'znela' (for voiced) and 'neznela'
>(unvoiced), the verbum 'znit' means 'to sound' in English.
D^ekují.
>> I would say that the voiced and unvoiced variants of /r^/ are
>> both unique to Czech, as they differ only in whether the vocal
>> chords are vibrating or not. The variants are automatic
>> depending on the voicedness or not of the preceding consonant.
>
>This is exactly the problem. There has to be that reverb, even though,
>in some cases, it is not so strong. When you pronounce 't' which you
>create right behind the teeth, the 'r^' is created right there, between
>the tip of the tongue and the teeth. When you pronounce the 'k' or 'h',
>you just can't create the 'r^' the same way; in this case the teeth are
>not involved, not even the tip of the tongue. Yes, the 'r^' does sound
>differently then, the beginning of it (it is weaker), but it is the
>following reverb which is so critical...and which has to be there.
>
>You might hear a different 'r^' after 'st' like in 'str^i:bro'
>(silver), it is a frontal 'r^', and the 'r^' after 'k' like in 'kr^en'
>(horseradish), but the following reverb is ballancing it, and it has
>the same QUALITY. If nothing else, the 'r^' is always different than
>'r', and that was the original post when someone didn't hear the 'r^'
>in 'tr^i:da', and was mentioning the English 'tree'.
Yes. Apart from the variation between "znela" ~ "neznela" /r^/,
which shouldn't make too much of a difference to either native or
foreign ears, I think you may be right that the original question
about <tr^ída> may have more to do with whether the immediately
preceding sound does or does not involve the tongue tip (in this
case dental <st->). That could certainly affect the relative
amount of friction and "reverb" (rolling).
English "tree" (and "draw") is actually a very good example of
the interaction between dental sounds and /r/. The combinations
/tr/ and /dr/ in English do not sound simply like /t/ (/d/) +
/r/. In fact, the /r/ combines with the /t/ (or /d/) to make an
affricate cluster which sounds not unlike Polish <trz> (<drz>)
[not really much like Czech <tr^>, <dr^>, because the tongue does
not roll].
Richard
Ruud Harmsen wrote in message <38b2867a...@news.knoware.nl>...
>Op Tue, 22 Feb 2000 02:08:55 GMT schreef of citeerde Prager
><Pra...@the-big-country.com> in nl.taal:
>
>>There is only one 'r^'...
>As I said, assimilations are difficult to hear, especially for native
>speakers, because the aren't aware they're doing it.
>--
>Ruud Harmsen - http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/
Here we go again - prove it. If you can't show the pattern of the sound
differs, the sound must be the same. What do you hear is not important, of
importance is what you transmitt or emmit. And there is only one objective
method - spectral analysis. It's easy to do, easy to see, easy to categorize
and easy to repeat. No mistakes,no confusion. If you are not able to do it,
I'm saying -" only one "r^" in Czech." Step into 21st century. I'm sorry
that a I have to post this on your sci.lang, but if you are talking sci.,
use sci. approach. Richard
Hana Bizek
Spectral analyzer? You actually record the Fourier series of each sound?
Hey, that's neat! Althouch I have never seen it myself, as a physicist I
can appreciate those things.
Hana a kostky
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Ruud Harmsen wrote in message <38b2867a...@news.knoware.nl>...
> >Op Tue, 22 Feb 2000 02:08:55 GMT schreef of citeerde Prager
> ><Pra...@the-big-country.com> in nl.taal:
> >
> >>> Michal is right .....
> >>There is only one 'r^'...
>
> >As I said, assimilations are difficult to hear, especially for native
> >speakers, because the aren't aware they're doing it.
> >--
> >Ruud Harmsen - http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/
>
> Here we go again - prove it. If you can't show the pattern of the sound
> differs, the sound must be the same. What do you hear is not important, of
> importance is what you transmitt or emmit. And there is only one objective
> method - spectral analysis. It's easy to do, easy to see, easy to categorize
> and easy to repeat. No mistakes,no confusion. If you are not able to do it,
> I'm saying -" only one "r^" in Czech." Step into 21st century. I'm sorry
> that a I have to post this on your sci.lang, but if you are talking sci.,
> use sci. approach. Richard
Ok. I've been watching this ridiculous thread on sci.lang for days, and
I've gotten totally sick of the ignorant attitude. Linguists like Miguel
have been telling you, over and over again, the simple facts about
phonetics and "allophony," and rather than learn something, you simply
dismiss them.
If it's the only way you will convince yourself that r^ can have
different sounds depending on the phonetic environment in different
words, then GO INTO THAT LAB OF YOURS AND MAKE SPECTROGRAMS!!!
It is simply a fact of language that all the instances of (say) "t" in a
language DO NOT SOUND ALIKE. But the different ways of saying "t" never
keep two words distinct, so speakers are not, generally, aware that they
are different -- *psychologically*, they are the same. Czech has one
"phoneme" /r^/, but it has different "allophonic" realizations depending
on what precedes or follows it.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
mith...@indiana.edu
Hana Bizek wrote:
> Spectral analyzer? You actually record the Fourier series of each sound?
> Hey, that's neat! Althouch I have never seen it myself, as a physicist I
> can appreciate those things.
Yes, it's been done for decades now. MAT
Hana Bizek
>
> Richard wrote:
> >
> > Ruud Harmsen wrote in message <38b2867a...@news.knoware.nl>...
> > >Op Tue, 22 Feb 2000 02:08:55 GMT schreef of citeerde Prager
> > ><Pra...@the-big-country.com> in nl.taal:
> > >
> > >>> Michal is right .....
> > >>There is only one 'r^'...
> >
> > >As I said, assimilations are difficult to hear, especially for native
> > >speakers, because the aren't aware they're doing it.
> > >--
> > >Ruud Harmsen - http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/
> >
> > Here we go again - prove it. If you can't show the pattern of the sound
> > differs, the sound must be the same. What do you hear is not important, of
> > importance is what you transmitt or emmit. And there is only one objective
> > method - spectral analysis. It's easy to do, easy to see, easy to categorize
> > and easy to repeat. No mistakes,no confusion. If you are not able to do it,
> > I'm saying -" only one "r^" in Czech." Step into 21st century. I'm sorry
> > that a I have to post this on your sci.lang, but if you are talking sci.,
> > use sci. approach. Richard
>
> Ok. I've been watching this ridiculous thread on sci.lang for days, and
> I've gotten totally sick of the ignorant attitude. Linguists like Miguel
> have been telling you, over and over again, the simple facts about
> phonetics and "allophony," and rather than learn something, you simply
> dismiss them.
Sorry to give you indigestion, but sci.lang invited us, we didn't invite
sci.lang. Wewere quite content in our virtual pub, drinking beer and
saying r^, both phonetic and allophonic.
Also, facts that may seem "simple" to you are complex to us, and vice
versa. I find constructing 3-dimensional designs by conventional
twiddling on a set of Rubik's cubes very simple. See if you can do that
by viewing them at http://cube.misto.cz.
>
> If it's the only way you will convince yourself that r^ can have
> different sounds depending on the phonetic environment in different
> words, then GO INTO THAT LAB OF YOURS AND MAKE SPECTROGRAMS!!!
>
Sorry, I don't work in a lab doing experiments. I do computational work.
Hana a kostky
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> Sorry to give you indigestion, but sci.lang invited us, we didn't invite
> sci.lang. Wewere quite content in our virtual pub, drinking beer and
> saying r^, both phonetic and allophonic.
No, "sci.lang" didn't reach out and grab the thread. Someone at s.c.c-s
cross-posted here (and nl.taal, which makes even less sense).
> Also, facts that may seem "simple" to you are complex to us, and vice
> versa. I find constructing 3-dimensional designs by conventional
> twiddling on a set of Rubik's cubes very simple. See if you can do that
> by viewing them at http://cube.misto.cz.
> >
> > If it's the only way you will convince yourself that r^ can have
> > different sounds depending on the phonetic environment in different
> > words, then GO INTO THAT LAB OF YOURS AND MAKE SPECTROGRAMS!!!
> >
> Sorry, I don't work in a lab doing experiments. I do computational work.
> Hana a kostky
Was I not responding to a posting by Richard?
Richard
Nop - you do not have to go to any lab - it's just in front of you. Your
computer, your audio card and your mouse. It's so easy! .
Amen. Richard
removed sci.lang,nl.taal
Prager
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Hana Bizek wrote:
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard wrote:
>
> > Sorry to give you indigestion, but sci.lang invited us, we didn't invite
> > sci.lang. Wewere quite content in our virtual pub, drinking beer and
> > saying r^, both phonetic and allophonic.
>
> No, "sci.lang" didn't reach out and grab the thread. Someone at s.c.c-s
> cross-posted here (and nl.taal, which makes even less sense).
You are wrong. This is the beginning of the thread in question:
From: rhar...@knoware.nl (Ruud Harmsen)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.czecho-slovak,nl.taal
Subject: Pronunciation of hr and chr in Czech?
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:57:42 GMT
And here is the question:
Below is a question that arose in nl.taal, and which I now know would
like to ask in a wider audience:
In words that start with "hr" in the Czech language, is there a [h] in
the pronuncaition, or a [x]?
The rest is cut. Considering this and your post, then --
1) you don't follow the subjects on nl.taal very well
2) none of us originated a scientific discussion, none of us claimed to
be an expert, we just expressed our opinion as native Czechs
3) it is not our fault that we are not trained scholars/linguists
4) all in all, your post is impolite
> > Also, facts that may seem "simple" to you are complex to us, and vice
> > versa. I find constructing 3-dimensional designs by conventional
> > twiddling on a set of Rubik's cubes very simple. See if you can do that
> > by viewing them at http://cube.misto.cz.
> > >
> > > If it's the only way you will convince yourself that r^ can have
> > > different sounds depending on the phonetic environment in different
> > > words, then GO INTO THAT LAB OF YOURS AND MAKE SPECTROGRAMS!!!
> > >
> > Sorry, I don't work in a lab doing experiments. I do computational work.
> > Hana a kostky
>
> Was I not responding to a posting by Richard?
This is a public news group, right...? Frankly, your post to Richard
was unfair. Few of us were willing to respond, Richard did. The reason
is simple: we don't know much about some (x), allophones, etc. But when
someone tells me that the voice in Metro saying 'tr^i:da' didn't have
that 'r^' and sounded like English 'tree', then most of us will simply
disagree. You see, there just has to be that 'r^', in whatever form,
even swallowed, if there is such a category. :) And then, don't you
think that it doesn't have to be a problem with our pronunciation of
the 'r^', but possibly a bad old loudpeaker in the wagon, or a bad tape
in the player, probably something manufactured 20 years ago in some
socialist factory? Also, do you have foreigners working for some
company like telemarketers? We have many of them here in Los Angeles,
sometimes I don't understand what they are selling! Should I make a
conclusion that the English is changing here?
BTW, I liked those post by Miguel Carrasquer Vidal. He was/is very
accurate, to the point, calm :) and obviously, he knows what he is
talking about. Frankly, I have learn something new from his posts...
Have a good one.
Prager
Ruud Harmsen
<Baz...@worldnet.att.net> in nl.taal:
>Here we go again - prove it. If you can't show the pattern of the sound
>differs, the sound must be the same. What do you hear is not important, of
>importance is what you transmitt or emmit. And there is only one objective
>method - spectral analysis. It's easy to do, easy to see, easy to categorize
>and easy to repeat. No mistakes,no confusion. If you are not able to do it,
>I'm saying -" only one "r^" in Czech."
On a spectral analyser, every single r^ is different.
Prager
<rhar...@knoware.nl> wrote:
It is something one would expect.
There are thousands words, a countless number of possible combinations.
Even native speakers say things differently, have different voices, and
there are also slangs, local variations, then different social groups,
and so on. You recognize two forms: voiced and voiceless 'r^', right?
yet, there are many different variations... BTW, 'r^' sounds very
different when one whispers. It is very intense, with a high pitch, and
sometimes we had to use filters when doing looping (post-sync) in
post-production. Why not to have this one as another form? Is it voiced
or voiceless? One doesn't use the flow of the air from his throat, only
the available air in his mouth, right?
The point is this: there are many variations, something what you can
call 'values,' but only one QUALITY, regardless of voiced or voiceless.
The quality of any sound is important because it is the quality which
makes the difference between "correct" and "wrong', or 'native' (with
all the variations, including a foreigner who learn the language well),
and 'foreign'.
As for the 'r^', and it is only my opinion of course, there seems to be
only one quality. We don't mix it with some form of 'r'. We would hear
it. It doesn't mean I am (we are) nationalist thought. Simply, we are
very sensitive to this sound, I guess. As a matter of fact, we have no
problem to mix s-z, y-i, d-t. very often we pronounce it the same way.
Actually, we need to know the grammar...to figure out what is the
correct spelling, but because people prefer some other reading and
grammar isn't very entertaining, people make mistakes, like in 'sprava'
(the management) vs 'zprava' (the news), or 'mali' (small, in plural)
and 'maly' (small, in singular). To make sure we mean singular, to
separate these two meanings), we sometimes use grammatically incoret
ending 'ej' in a daily, general conversation. In this case it would be
'malej' (small, in singular).
Simply, what we are trying to say is that we are not 'r^' tolerant. :)
Prager
Hana Bizek
>
> Hana Bizek wrote:
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard wrote:
>
> > Sorry to give you indigestion, but sci.lang invited us, we didn't invite
> > sci.lang. Wewere quite content in our virtual pub, drinking beer and
> > saying r^, both phonetic and allophonic.
>
> No, "sci.lang" didn't reach out and grab the thread. Someone at s.c.c-s
> cross-posted here (and nl.taal, which makes even less sense).
>
And did you look at http://cube.misto.cz? Go down to the Appendices and
click on "Three dimensional designs by Dr. Hana M. Bizek." No hidden
viruses present, don't worry. We Czechs are decent folk, who wouldn't
do this to anyone.
> > Also, facts that may seem "simple" to you are complex to us, and vice
> > versa. I find constructing 3-dimensional designs by conventional
> > twiddling on a set of Rubik's cubes very simple. See if you can do that
> > by viewing them at http://cube.misto.cz.
> > >
> > > If it's the only way you will convince yourself that r^ can have
> > > different sounds depending on the phonetic environment in different
> > > words, then GO INTO THAT LAB OF YOURS AND MAKE SPECTROGRAMS!!!
> > >
> > Sorry, I don't work in a lab doing experiments. I do computational work.
> > Hana a kostky
>
> Was I not responding to a posting by Richard?
> --
This is a public forum, where anyone can respond. If you wish to
communicate directly and exclusively with Richard, you should send him
email.
Hana a kostky
> Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Peter T. Daniels
>
> > Hana Bizek wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry to give you indigestion, but sci.lang invited us, we didn't invite
> > > sci.lang. Wewere quite content in our virtual pub, drinking beer and
> > > saying r^, both phonetic and allophonic.
> >
> > No, "sci.lang" didn't reach out and grab the thread. Someone at s.c.c-s
> > cross-posted here (and nl.taal, which makes even less sense).
>
>
> From: rhar...@knoware.nl (Ruud Harmsen)
> Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.czecho-slovak,nl.taal
> Subject: Pronunciation of hr and chr in Czech?
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:57:42 GMT
>
> And here is the question:
>
> Below is a question that arose in nl.taal, and which I now know would
> like to ask in a wider audience:
All right, so someone in nl.taal cross-posted to sci.lang. Why should I
have memorized that -- it hardly seems a likely topic for "Dutch
Language"!
> In words that start with "hr" in the Czech language, is there a [h] in
> the pronuncaition, or a [x]?
>
> The rest is cut. Considering this and your post, then --
>
> 1) you don't follow the subjects on nl.taal very well
I never knew it existed; I don't read Dutch.
> 2) none of us originated a scientific discussion, none of us claimed to
> be an expert, we just expressed our opinion as native Czechs
> 3) it is not our fault that we are not trained scholars/linguists
> 4) all in all, your post is impolite
Only after several days of arrogance from Czech speakers who refuse to
believe what professional linguists -- including scholars of Slavic
languages -- told them.
> > > Also, facts that may seem "simple" to you are complex to us, and vice
> > > versa. I find constructing 3-dimensional designs by conventional
> > > twiddling on a set of Rubik's cubes very simple. See if you can do that
> > > by viewing them at http://cube.misto.cz.
WHO CARES?????
> > > > If it's the only way you will convince yourself that r^ can have
> > > > different sounds depending on the phonetic environment in different
> > > > words, then GO INTO THAT LAB OF YOURS AND MAKE SPECTROGRAMS!!!
> > > >
> > > Sorry, I don't work in a lab doing experiments. I do computational work.
> > > Hana a kostky
> >
> > Was I not responding to a posting by Richard?
>
> This is a public news group, right...? Frankly, your post to Richard
> was unfair. Few of us were willing to respond, Richard did. The reason
> is simple: we don't know much about some (x), allophones, etc. But when
> someone tells me that the voice in Metro saying 'tr^i:da' didn't have
> that 'r^' and sounded like English 'tree', then most of us will simply
> disagree.
No one said anything of the sort. What they said was that after /t/, the
/r^/ has a voiceless allophone (i.e. variety, version). It later came
out that many Czech dialects don't even pronounce the [r^] any more at
all.
> You see, there just has to be that 'r^', in whatever form,
> even swallowed, if there is such a category. :) And then, don't you
> think that it doesn't have to be a problem with our pronunciation of
> the 'r^', but possibly a bad old loudpeaker in the wagon, or a bad tape
> in the player, probably something manufactured 20 years ago in some
> socialist factory? Also, do you have foreigners working for some
> company like telemarketers? We have many of them here in Los Angeles,
> sometimes I don't understand what they are selling! Should I make a
> conclusion that the English is changing here?
English is always changing, everywhere. So is Czech. I don't see what
that has to do with anything.
> BTW, I liked those post by Miguel Carrasquer Vidal. He was/is very
> accurate, to the point, calm :) and obviously, he knows what he is
> talking about. Frankly, I have learn something new from his posts...
Then why didn't you-all just stop cross-posting to sci.lang after he
answered your question clearly and calmly?
Ruud Harmsen
<hbi...@ameritech.net> in nl.taal:
>Sorry to give you indigestion, but sci.lang invited us, we didn't invite
>sci.lang. Wewere quite content in our virtual pub, drinking beer and
>saying r^, both phonetic and allophonic.
Actually it was me who started this discussion in newsgroups sci.lang,
soc.culture.czecho-slovak and nl.taal. Nl.taal was included because
that's where the question came from, and I added the other two because
I expected to find answers there. Meanwhile they have been amply
received. I thank all participants for that.
Holoholona
>
>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> Ok. I've been watching this ridiculous thread on sci.lang for days, and
>> I've gotten totally sick of the ignorant attitude. Linguists like Miguel
>> have been telling you, over and over again, the simple facts about
>> phonetics and "allophony," and rather than learn something, you simply
>> dismiss them.
>
>sci.lang. Wewere quite content in our virtual pub, drinking beer and
>saying r^, both phonetic and allophonic.
>versa. I find constructing 3-dimensional designs by conventional
>twiddling on a set of Rubik's cubes very simple. See if you can do that
>by viewing them at http://cube.misto.cz.
The difference is, those on sci.lang don't argue that you don't understand
Rubik's cubes.
Holoholona
Alan D Corre
>Well, Michal, I am not a linquist, merely a physicist and a
>3-dimensional Rubik's cube designer. But r~ or r with a hacek,is my
>favorite sound. :-)
If we are talking about favorites in Slavic, I should like to offer my
favorite Russian word -- zhivotrepeshchushchiy. It is not just a dictionary
word, I saw it in a newspaper article meaning "lively, stirring." I am also
partial to zachitat', which means to borrow a book to read, and fail to
return it. You probably have had that done to you, or done it to others
without realising that Russian has a short and sweet word for it.
--
Alan D. Corre
Emeritus Professor of Hebrew Studies
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
http://www.uwm.edu/~corre/
Hana Bizek
And I don't argue that those on sci.lang don't understand linguistics. I
am a physicist, and quite removed from linguistics, so I would be an
arrogant fool to do that. My point is, that my expertise lies elsewhere
and I merely wish to illusteate soime of the things I can do.
Hana a kostky
Hana Bizek
>
> In article <38B05E...@ameritech.net> hbi...@ameritech.net writes:
>
> >Well, Michal, I am not a linquist, merely a physicist and a
> >3-dimensional Rubik's cube designer. But r~ or r with a hacek,is my
> >favorite sound. :-)
>
> If we are talking about favorites in Slavic, I should like to offer my
> favorite Russian word -- zhivotrepeshchushchiy. It is not just a dictionary
> word, I saw it in a newspaper article meaning "lively, stirring." I am also
> partial to zachitat', which means to borrow a book to read, and fail to
> return it. You probably have had that done to you, or done it to others
> without realising that Russian has a short and sweet word for it.
>
combination. Let me replace the first sound with r^, to make r^c^. An
example of such a word is hor^c^ice (mustard). Oh yes, we have some
rather interesting combinations, if I may say so myself.
Hana a kostky
Zdislav V. Kovarik
Alan D Corre <co...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>In article <38B05E...@ameritech.net> hbi...@ameritech.net writes:
>
>>Well, Michal, I am not a linquist, merely a physicist and a
>>3-dimensional Rubik's cube designer. But r~ or r with a hacek,is my
>>favorite sound. :-)
Well, I wanted to be a linquist, but then I switched to mathematics, yet I
retained linquistics as a hobby. I suppose I am a relinquist. (And I love
to cook and eat linquini...)
>If we are talking about favorites in Slavic, I should like to offer my
>favorite Russian word -- zhivotrepeshchushchiy. It is not just a dictionary
>word, I saw it in a newspaper article meaning "lively, stirring." I am also
>partial to zachitat', which means to borrow a book to read, and fail to
>return it. You probably have had that done to you, or done it to others
>without realising that Russian has a short and sweet word for it.
That is called in Czech "sebrane spisy" (a shifted meaning given to a
well-established expression for "collected works"). :-)=
And how about the warmest (tepidissimum) Russian word:
zashchishchayushchiy (shielding, defending)?
and a close second, the South-Slavic
chevabchichi (in my experience as a school kitchen customer, breaded
and fried meat leftovers)
Slavek(ZVK)
Hana Bizek
>
> Prager wrote:
> >
> > In article <38B469...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
> > <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hana Bizek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard wrote:
> > >
> > > > sci.lang. Wewere quite content in our virtual pub, drinking beer and
> > > > saying r^, both phonetic and allophonic.
> > >
> > > > versa. I find constructing 3-dimensional designs by conventional
> > > > twiddling on a set of Rubik's cubes very simple. See if you can do that
> > > > by viewing them at http://cube.misto.cz.
>
I wished to point out the obvious fact that no one can be expert at
everything. Do you understand group theory,a branch of mathematics
applicable to these designs? Yet there are mathematicians and
scientists, both on and off the web, who are keenly interested in these
phenomena. So before berating us for not understanding linguistics, see
how good you are at constructing these designs.
>
> > > > > If it's the only way you will convince yourself that r^ can have
> > > > > different sounds depending on the phonetic environment in different
> > > > > words, then GO INTO THAT LAB OF YOURS AND MAKE SPECTROGRAMS!!!
> > > > >
> > > > Sorry, I don't work in a lab doing experiments. I do computational work.
> > > > Hana a kostky
> > >
> > > Was I not responding to a posting by Richard?
> >
> > This is a public news group, right...? Frankly, your post to Richard
> > was unfair. Few of us were willing to respond, Richard did. The reason
> > is simple: we don't know much about some (x), allophones, etc. But when
> > someone tells me that the voice in Metro saying 'tr^i:da' didn't have
> > that 'r^' and sounded like English 'tree', then most of us will simply
> > disagree.
>
> No one said anything of the sort. What they said was that after /t/, the
> /r^/ has a voiceless allophone (i.e. variety, version). It later came
> out that many Czech dialects don't even pronounce the [r^] any more at
> all.
Slovak is a Czech dialect??????? Slovaks are a separate nation with
their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs. This language does
not have the r^ sound. Or you mean other Czech dialects? Which ones?
>
> > You see, there just has to be that 'r^', in whatever form,
> > even swallowed, if there is such a category. :) And then, don't you
> > think that it doesn't have to be a problem with our pronunciation of
> > the 'r^', but possibly a bad old loudpeaker in the wagon, or a bad tape
> > in the player, probably something manufactured 20 years ago in some
> > socialist factory? Also, do you have foreigners working for some
> > company like telemarketers? We have many of them here in Los Angeles,
> > sometimes I don't understand what they are selling! Should I make a
> > conclusion that the English is changing here?
>
> English is always changing, everywhere. So is Czech. I don't see what
> that has to do with anything.
>
> > BTW, I liked those post by Miguel Carrasquer Vidal. He was/is very
> > accurate, to the point, calm :) and obviously, he knows what he is
> > talking about. Frankly, I have learn something new from his posts...
>
> Then why didn't you-all just stop cross-posting to sci.lang after he
> answered your question clearly and calmly?
> --
> Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Hana a kostky
Hana Bizek
>
> Hana Bizek wrote:
>
> > > /r^/ has a voiceless allophone (i.e. variety, version). It later came
> > > out that many Czech dialects don't even pronounce the [r^] any more at
> > > all.
> >
> > Slovak is a Czech dialect??????? Slovaks are a separate nation with
> > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs. This language does
> > not have the r^ sound. Or you mean other Czech dialects? Which ones?
>
> the examples, but examples were given; which the Czech purists dismissed
> because they're not "proper Czech," just some dialect.
>
> Moreover, I don't know for sure, but I would be very, very surprised if
> you can find a spot somewhere on the ground where on one side they speak
> Czech, on the other they speak Slovak, and the respective inhabitants
> can't understand each other just as well as they understand the
> respective Czech- and Slovak-speaking neighbors just down the road in
> the other direction.
Oh, I understand when someone speaks Slovak, the languages are similar.
Nevertheless, they are two dustinct languages and not dialects of the
same language.
>
> I believe that's what Coby is suggesting.
>
> > > > BTW, I liked those post by Miguel Carrasquer Vidal. He was/is very
> > > > accurate, to the point, calm :) and obviously, he knows what he is
> > > > talking about. Frankly, I have learn something new from his posts...
> > >
> > > Then why didn't you-all just stop cross-posting to sci.lang after he
> > > answered your question clearly and calmly?
>
> You didn't answer that question.
> --
And you ignored my cubes and relewavant group theory.
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>No one said anything of the sort. What they said was that after /t/, the
>/r^/ has a voiceless allophone (i.e. variety, version). It later came
>out that many Czech dialects don't even pronounce the [r^] any more at
>all.
That's news to me. Something was mentioned about it being absent
from some individual Czech speakers[*] (just like some individual
English-speakers --e.g. Elmer "wabbit" Fudd (?)-- don't have
[R]).
[*] what do they replace it with? z^?
Peter T. Daniels
> > No one said anything of the sort. What they said was that after /t/, the
> > /r^/ has a voiceless allophone (i.e. variety, version). It later came
> > out that many Czech dialects don't even pronounce the [r^] any more at
> > all.
>
> Slovak is a Czech dialect??????? Slovaks are a separate nation with
> their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs. This language does
> not have the r^ sound. Or you mean other Czech dialects? Which ones?
I'm not going to search back through this stupid, stupid thread to find
the examples, but examples were given; which the Czech purists dismissed
because they're not "proper Czech," just some dialect.
Moreover, I don't know for sure, but I would be very, very surprised if
you can find a spot somewhere on the ground where on one side they speak
Czech, on the other they speak Slovak, and the respective inhabitants
can't understand each other just as well as they understand the
respective Czech- and Slovak-speaking neighbors just down the road in
the other direction.
I believe that's what Coby is suggesting.
> > > BTW, I liked those post by Miguel Carrasquer Vidal. He was/is very
> > > accurate, to the point, calm :) and obviously, he knows what he is
> > > talking about. Frankly, I have learn something new from his posts...
> >
> > Then why didn't you-all just stop cross-posting to sci.lang after he
> > answered your question clearly and calmly?
You didn't answer that question.
Prager
Carrasquer Vidal <m...@wxs.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:49:39 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >No one said anything of the sort. What they said was that after /t/, the
> >/r^/ has a voiceless allophone (i.e. variety, version). It later came
> >out that many Czech dialects don't even pronounce the [r^] any more at
> >all.
>
> That's news to me. Something was mentioned about it being absent
> from some individual Czech speakers[*] (just like some individual
> English-speakers --e.g. Elmer "wabbit" Fudd (?)-- don't have
> [R]).
>
> [*] what do they replace it with? z^?
You are right again. Actually, all our children go through this stage
when they pronounce 'z^' (Maminka z^ikala z^e ... My mother was
saying). Some learn the 'r^' quickly, for some it is a nightmare and
they have to go to a speach therapist (Robert was mentioning his wife),
and some people will never learn it correctly, even though they are
native Czechs.
Prager
Prager
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Hana Bizek wrote:
>
> > > No one said anything of the sort. What they said was that after /t/, the
> > > /r^/ has a voiceless allophone (i.e. variety, version). It later came
> > > out that many Czech dialects don't even pronounce the [r^] any more at
> > > all.
> >
> > Slovak is a Czech dialect??????? Slovaks are a separate nation with
> > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs. This language does
> > not have the r^ sound. Or you mean other Czech dialects? Which ones?
You have a very strange attitude. Czech and Slovak are two different
languages. In Czechoslovakia, the capital was in Prague where were all
the Federal institutions, and so, many Slovaks live and work in Prague,
they learned to speak perfekt Czech, but it is sometimes this 'r^'
which 'gives them away,' but WE DON'T MIND! We just hear it. Many
Czechs speak Slovak very well too, but they don't have this 'r^'
hurdle.
As for Czech dialects, OF COURSE we have them!!! In Prague, they have
their own, as well as people from around Pilsen. They sound different,
sometimes they use different words. And there is a heavy one around
Chodsko, next to borders with Germany, then one in Krkonose region.
People in Moravia, in Ostrava, they have even their own words, also
using lots of Polish ones, people in Brno have their own as well. We
have several dialects...people use some specific, local words that even
I have to ask them what they mean, not to mention the pronounciation!
It's not like German and Switzerdich, but one has to pay attention
sometimes.
> I'm not going to search back through this stupid, stupid thread to find
> the examples, but examples were given; which the Czech purists dismissed
> because they're not "proper Czech," just some dialect.
Don't bother. Use *kill file* if this is so stupid for you, bellow your
level and academic standards. This is a public pub. If you want to talk
about social-psychology and language, using words as symbols, talk
about Vygotskyi, Bergson, Bachtin, Averbach and others, you are
welcome, I have that Ph.D. somewhere in my drawers, too, but allophones
you can keep. They are all yours. :)
> Moreover, I don't know for sure, but I would be very, very surprised if
> you can find a spot somewhere on the ground where on one side they speak
> Czech, on the other they speak Slovak, and the respective inhabitants
> can't understand each other just as well as they understand the
> respective Czech- and Slovak-speaking neighbors just down the road in
> the other direction.
I didn't get this one. Who is who, who is doing the talking, and who
just listens -- and to whom?
> I believe that's what Coby is suggesting.
>
> > > > BTW, I liked those post by Miguel Carrasquer Vidal. He was/is very
> > > > accurate, to the point, calm :) and obviously, he knows what he is
> > > > talking about. Frankly, I have learn something new from his posts...
> > >
> > > Then why didn't you-all just stop cross-posting to sci.lang after he
> > > answered your question clearly and calmly?
>
> You didn't answer that question.
You know, it's like tennis. You serve, and -- BANG! -- here comes the
return, a backhand. You scramble for the ball and WHOOSH, you target
the open back corner; but there are quick legs: tap-tap-tap-tap, and
BANG...! it's back in your corner, and you are so upaset! Hey, it's
only a game. Relax, alright?
How is your weather? Cold...rainy?
Prager
Richard Herring
> Slovak is a Czech dialect??????? Slovaks are a separate nation with
> their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs.
OK. Since we're still in the pantomime season, I'll volunteer to
set this one up...
What is the difference between a language and a dialect?
--
Richard "straight man" Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>
Richard Herring
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > Prager wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <38B469...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
> > > <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > > Hana Bizek wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, facts that may seem "simple" to you are complex to us, and vice
> > > > > versa. I find constructing 3-dimensional designs by conventional
> > > > > twiddling on a set of Rubik's cubes very simple. See if you can do that
> > > > > by viewing them at http://cube.misto.cz.
> >
> > WHO CARES?????
> I wished to point out the obvious fact that no one can be expert at
> everything. Do you understand group theory,a branch of mathematics
> applicable to these designs? Yet there are mathematicians and
> scientists, both on and off the web, who are keenly interested in these
> phenomena.
Indeed - and they discuss them in appropriate newsgroups. If anyone
talks nonsense about group theory in sci.math, someone will point it out.
And likewise if you talk nonsense about linguistics in sci.lang,
the same will happen.
> So before berating us for not understanding linguistics, see
> how good you are at constructing these designs.
Why? What is their linguistic significance?
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>
eric schade
Richard Herring <r...@gmrc.gecm.com> a écrit dans le message :
895shl$qsn$6...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
> > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs.
>
> set this one up...
>
> What is the difference between a language and a dialect?
ES: If a dialect got interpreters, it becomes a language. :-)
(For instance: Luxemburgian, which used to be a quiet German dialect before
WW II).
bauwelinck
eric schade a écrit :
> Richard Herring <r...@gmrc.gecm.com> a écrit dans le message :
> 895shl$qsn$6...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
> > In article <38B5B2...@ameritech.net>, Hana Bizek
> (hbi...@ameritech.net) wrote:
> >
> > > Slovak is a Czech dialect??????? Slovaks are a separate nation with
> > > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> > > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs.
> >
> > OK. Since we're still in the pantomime season, I'll volunteer to
> > set this one up...
> >
> > What is the difference between a language and a dialect?
>
> ES: If a dialect got interpreters, it becomes a language. :-)
> (For instance: Luxemburgian, which used to be a quiet German dialect before
> WW II).
> : ...which does not mean that a dialect without interpreters could NOT become
> a language, of course.
bauwelinck
eric schade a écrit :
> Richard Herring <r...@gmrc.gecm.com> a écrit dans le message :
> 895shl$qsn$6...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
> > In article <38B5B2...@ameritech.net>, Hana Bizek
> (hbi...@ameritech.net) wrote:
> >
> > > Slovak is a Czech dialect??????? Slovaks are a separate nation with
> > > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> > > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs.
> >
bauwelinck
eric schade a écrit :
> Richard Herring <r...@gmrc.gecm.com> a écrit dans le message :
> 895shl$qsn$6...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
> > In article <38B5B2...@ameritech.net>, Hana Bizek
> (hbi...@ameritech.net) wrote:
> >
> > > Slovak is a Czech dialect??????? Slovaks are a separate nation with
> > > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> > > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs.
> >
bauwelinck
eric schade a écrit :
> Richard Herring <r...@gmrc.gecm.com> a écrit dans le message :
> 895shl$qsn$6...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
> > In article <38B5B2...@ameritech.net>, Hana Bizek
> (hbi...@ameritech.net) wrote:
> >
> > > Slovak is a Czech dialect??????? Slovaks are a separate nation with
> > > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> > > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs.
> >
bauwelinck
eric schade a écrit :
> Richard Herring <r...@gmrc.gecm.com> a écrit dans le message :
> 895shl$qsn$6...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
> > In article <38B5B2...@ameritech.net>, Hana Bizek
> (hbi...@ameritech.net) wrote:
> >
> > > Slovak is a Czech dialect??????? Slovaks are a separate nation with
> > > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> > > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs.
> >
bauwelinck
eric schade a écrit :
> Richard Herring <r...@gmrc.gecm.com> a écrit dans le message :
> 895shl$qsn$6...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
> > In article <38B5B2...@ameritech.net>, Hana Bizek
> (hbi...@ameritech.net) wrote:
> >
> > > Slovak is a Czech dialect??????? Slovaks are a separate nation with
> > > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> > > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs.
> >
> > OK. Since we're still in the pantomime season, I'll volunteer to
> > set this one up...
> >
> > What is the difference between a language and a dialect?
>
> ES: If a dialect got interpreters, it becomes a language. :-)
> (For instance: Luxemburgian, which used to be a quiet German dialect before
> WW II).
...which does not mean that a dialect without interpreters or even translators
could NOT become a language of course.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <38B5B2...@ameritech.net>, Hana Bizek (hbi...@ameritech.net) wrote:
>
> > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs.
>
> set this one up...
>
> What is the difference between a language and a dialect?
Humorously put (by Max Weinreich), "A language is a dialect with an army
and a navy." Which is to say, this is a question not of linguistics, but
of politics.
maf
Richard Herring wrote:
> In article <38B5B2...@ameritech.net>, Hana Bizek (hbi...@ameritech.net) wrote:
>
> > Slovak is a Czech dialect??????? Slovaks are a separate nation with
> > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs.
>
> OK. Since we're still in the pantomime season, I'll volunteer to
> set this one up...
>
> What is the difference between a language and a dialect?
I (perhaps foolishly, flameshields UP!) will take on this one.
The answer is (drum roll please) : No one knows.
There are about a zillion definitions in linguistics and whole books devoted to this
theoretical problem. In practice, the answer (abbreviating horribly here) is that when
the speakers in question say that two speech varieties are separate languages (or the
same language for that matter) then linguists humbly go along (at least in public).
Now the speakers involved usually have _lots_ of different reasons for saying that two
given speech varieties are or aren't the same language and very rarely do these
reasons co-incide with things that linguists are interested in. In a nutshell you're
talking questions of ethnic/nationalistic/political identity and linguists, while
pugnacious as hell among themselves, do generally try to get along with non-linguists.
Speaking in _purely_ linguistic terms Czech and Slovak would have to be classified as
a single language with strong regional variation (which doesn't seem to unduly impede
communication) and two separate written and formal standards. Actually it's a lot like
(native) English on a much smaller scale as it's my impression that the two standards
are about as far (or close) as BBC and Standard American English (alhtough the
speakers involved in this case insist there is only one language although it's my
perception that the two are steadily diverging).
But (getting back to the original question) Czechs and Slovaks say they're two
separate languages (it seems to matter more to the Slovaks) and so linguists treat
them as two separate languages.
FLAME AWAY!!!!!!!!!
-mike farris
Prager
<esc...@be.packardbell.org> wrote:
> Richard Herring <r...@gmrc.gecm.com> a écrit dans le message :
> 895shl$qsn$6...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
> > In article <38B5B2...@ameritech.net>, Hana Bizek
> (hbi...@ameritech.net) wrote:
> >
> > > Slovak is a Czech dialect??????? Slovaks are a separate nation with
> > > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> > > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs.
> >
> > OK. Since we're still in the pantomime season, I'll volunteer to
> > set this one up...
> >
> > What is the difference between a language and a dialect?
>
> ES: If a dialect got interpreters, it becomes a language. :-)
> (For instance: Luxemburgian, which used to be a quiet German dialect before
> WW II).
Finally...! Now you are getting funny, you sci.lang guys. So you have
all these allophones and kakophones, discussing the nature of the Czech
'r^', but then you start a scientific discussion if Czech and Slovak
are two dialects, or two languages? Oh, okay...I get it. Actually, you
are not sci.lang guys, but rather sci.allophones zombies, sounding like
gramo.phones. :)
Cool. Let me help you. If you got people who have their own Book of
Grammar and they agree that that's the Bible of their language, and
they have the balls (and Rubic cubes) to defend it with their arms and
legs, then you have an independent language. If there is another group
and they have their own Book of Grammar, then this is another language.
You can try to walk over and start to beat them over their heads,
yelling: this is the Book to follow, burn that crap of yours! Sometimes
it works; after 300 years or so, the language is extinct, but sometimes
it is still alive...like in our case, after 300 years of German in
Austro-Hungary Emporium. So, if we have survived 300 years of being
beaten over our heads, than you can imagine how deeply is rooted that
'r^' of ours, and if you touch our 'r^', it's like you would touch our
wienie (or a frankfurter, to be exact)! And if you say that the Czech
is actually Polish or Russian dialect, we will have you for breakfast.
:)
Prager
eric schade
Prager <Pra...@the-big-country.com> a écrit dans le message :
250220000911352080%Pra...@the-big-country.com...
> In article <895th1$1o1$1...@newnews1.news.nl.uu.net>, eric schade
> <esc...@be.packardbell.org> wrote:
>
> > Richard Herring <r...@gmrc.gecm.com> a écrit dans le message :
> > 895shl$qsn$6...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
> > > In article <38B5B2...@ameritech.net>, Hana Bizek
> > (hbi...@ameritech.net) wrote:
> > >
> > > > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their
national
> > > > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs.
> > >
> > > set this one up...
> > >
> > > What is the difference between a language and a dialect?
> >
> > ES: If a dialect got interpreters, it becomes a language. :-)
> > (For instance: Luxemburgian, which used to be a quiet German dialect
before
> > WW II).
>
> Finally...! Now you are getting funny
(cut)
ES: What's so funny about it? In fact, it was the German invader who pushed
the people there to "choose" their mother tongue. They could choose French
or German, BUT they agreed secretly to "vote" for Luxemburgian. What's so
funny about this? Since then, Luxemburg has his own OFFICIAL mother tongue
AND French as government language AND German as main press language. So most
of the people in Luxemburg speak 3 languages fluently. No joke.
Hana Bizek
>
> In article <895th1$1o1$1...@newnews1.news.nl.uu.net>, eric schade
> <esc...@be.packardbell.org> wrote:
>
> > Richard Herring <r...@gmrc.gecm.com> a écrit dans le message :
> > 895shl$qsn$6...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com...
> > > In article <38B5B2...@ameritech.net>, Hana Bizek
> > (hbi...@ameritech.net) wrote:
> > >
> > > > their own language, Slovak. They are fiercely proud of their national
> > > > identity and DON'T like to be coinfused with Czechs.
> > >
> > > set this one up...
> > >
> > > What is the difference between a language and a dialect?
> >
> > ES: If a dialect got interpreters, it becomes a language. :-)
> > (For instance: Luxemburgian, which used to be a quiet German dialect before
> > WW II).
>
> all these allophones and kakophones, discussing the nature of the Czech
> 'r^', but then you start a scientific discussion if Czech and Slovak
> are two dialects, or two languages? Oh, okay...I get it. Actually, you
> are not sci.lang guys, but rather sci.allophones zombies, sounding like
> gramo.phones. :)
>
> Cool. Let me help you. If you got people who have their own Book of
> Grammar and they agree that that's the Bible of their language, and
> they have the balls (and Rubic cubes) to defend it with their arms and
> legs, then you have an independent language. If there is another group
> and they have their own Book of Grammar, then this is another language.
>
> You can try to walk over and start to beat them over their heads,
> yelling: this is the Book to follow, burn that crap of yours! Sometimes
> it works; after 300 years or so, the language is extinct, but sometimes
> it is still alive...like in our case, after 300 years of German in
> Austro-Hungary Emporium. So, if we have survived 300 years of being
> beaten over our heads, than you can imagine how deeply is rooted that
> 'r^' of ours, and if you touch our 'r^', it's like you would touch our
> wienie (or a frankfurter, to be exact)! And if you say that the Czech
> is actually Polish or Russian dialect, we will have you for breakfast.
> :)
>
> Prager
....and lunch and dinner, too!! :-)
Hana a kostky
Hana Bizek
>
> In article <38B5B2...@ameritech.net>, Hana Bizek (hbi...@ameritech.net) wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > > Prager wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <38B469...@worldnet.att.net>, Peter T. Daniels
> > > > <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > > > Hana Bizek wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, facts that may seem "simple" to you are complex to us, and vice
> > > > > > versa. I find constructing 3-dimensional designs by conventional
> > > > > > twiddling on a set of Rubik's cubes very simple. See if you can do that
> > > > > > by viewing them at http://cube.misto.cz.
> > >
> > > WHO CARES?????
>
> > I wished to point out the obvious fact that no one can be expert at
> > everything. Do you understand group theory,a branch of mathematics
> > applicable to these designs? Yet there are mathematicians and
> > scientists, both on and off the web, who are keenly interested in these
> > phenomena.
>
> talks nonsense about group theory in sci.math, someone will point it out.
> And likewise if you talk nonsense about linguistics in sci.lang,
> the same will happen.
Excuse me, but I do not "talk nonsense" about linguistics. Since I
din't understand it, I don't talk about it at all. I merely read those
posts, but, not fully understanding the matter, I contributed very
little. Basically I threw the letter r^ into the discussion. If you wish
to verify this, you will just hsve to go through the "stupid thread" and
look for posts signed "Hana a kostky."
>
> > So before berating us for not understanding linguistics, see
> > how good you are at constructing these designs.
>
> Why? What is their linguistic significance?
>
More than you will ever know. Look at the names of these designs. Some
of them are Czech and a few just abound with r^s. Examples: "mr^i'z^",
"c^tyr^spr^ez^i'","vzkr^i's^eni'", "c^tverce uvnitr^ c^tvercu",
"c^tyr^r^ad", and pri'str^es^i'". That should keep you guys happy for a
while. :-))
Hana a kostky
PS. Some of those names are found in the book I have published, not in
http://cube.misto.cz.
> --
> Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>
Ruud Harmsen
<eric...@belgonet.be> in nl.taal:
>Sorry voor het verlet.
Wat is dat? Ik ken dat woord niet.
>Ik heb verkeerde manipulaties uitgevoerd.
Een heleboel keer hetzelfde bericht verstuurd met alleen aanhaling, en
geen tekst, is dat het? Is dat "verlet"?
--
Ruud Harmsen - http://utopia.knoware.nl/~rharmsen/