Pole, the wrote:It appears like I have something to write on topic.
My first name is Miłosz [ˈmiwɔs̠], it is a Slavic name with no counterparts in Western European languages. My second name is Andrzej [andz̠ɛj], a Polish version of “Andrew”.
I am thinking about going for a student exchange to Hämeenlinna, Finland, this autumn. Then I am going to be called by some name. I could use just my Slavic name, probably just adapted as something like [milos] or [miʋos]. On the other hand, I could use my second name in a version that is already functioning in Finnish, like Andreas or Antero. Or maybe there are even more options.
What do you think?
If they get to see your name in writing before you get to introduce yourself IRL, they're just gonna call you ['milos], I think.
vokzhen wrote:That's retracted, sometimes used to differentiate between laminal, non-palatalized postalveolars /s̠/ in Slavic and Chinese from the apical postalveolar /ṣ/ and subapical palatal /ʂ/ found in India, all of which are usually just transcribed /ʂ/. But I've also seen /s̠/ used for a retracted, "retroflexed" (generally apico)-alveolar that appears in Basque as ⟨s⟩ versus the lamino-dental ⟨z⟩, premodern/dialectical Spanish /s̠/ ⟨s⟩ versus /ts~θ/ ⟨c z⟩, OHG /s̠/ from *s versus /s/ from *t (roughly modern ⟨sch s⟩ versus ⟨ss ß⟩); afaik given its spread it's generally theorized to either be an old areal feature, the Latin pronunciation of ⟨S⟩, or both. But the retracted (apico-)alveolar can also be transcribed /ṣ/, which is used for apical postalveolar "retroflexes," and retraction is also used for alveolo-palatals /ṉʲ ḏʲ/, demonstrating how clusterfucky transcription is in practice.
Sounds complicated. I am Polish and I always assumed that what we have are retroflexes ( /ʂ ʐ/ etc.) Wikipedia also analyzes these sounds as retroflexes. I don’t know any non-Slavic language with those, though, so I have no point of comparison.
gestaltist wrote:Sounds complicated. I am Polish and I always assumed that what we have are retroflexes ( /ʂ ʐ/ etc.) Wikipedia also analyzes these sounds as retroflexes. I don’t know any non-Slavic language with those, though, so I have no point of comparison.
The best approximation I could muster of "sz" doesn't involve retroflexion (quite the opposite, actually). Do you actually curl your tongue backwards when pronouncing it?
gestaltist wrote:Yes, I do. I curl the tongue backwards with the tip touching the hard palate.
Fascinating! I'm wondering whether there is variation amongst Polish speakers, or that my approximation of that sound is actually just dead wrong. How do you pronounce ś?
gestaltist wrote:Yes, I do. I curl the tongue backwards with the tip touching the hard palate.
Fascinating! I'm wondering whether there is variation amongst Polish speakers, or that my approximation of that sound is actually just dead wrong. How do you pronounce ś?
I find ś harder to analyze but I think what happens is that I touch the frontal part of the hard palate with the blade of the tongue. It is like [ç] moved further forward.
finlay wrote:It's not exactly the same name, of course, but what with that name and Finlay becoming more popular since I was born (still unusual, just more than there were my age), if I'm in the UK I occasionally hear a mother shouting for her child called Finlay, which weirds me out a little. It's still the kind of name that people in the UK have heard, and probably know like one, maybe two people with the name - it's more common in Scotland, I guess. I knew maybe one or two people in each year of my high school. I've never known anyone who spelt it another way, but still no-one can spell it - they're always asking if it's Findlay or Finley. I think those are more common as surnames or something?
This is good. It means you won't have an "Old Name" when you're old. You're not going to be a Chlem or a Mervin.
gestaltist wrote:Yes, I do. I curl the tongue backwards with the tip touching the hard palate.
Fascinating! I'm wondering whether there is variation amongst Polish speakers, or that my approximation of that sound is actually just dead wrong.
Well, I am a Pole (duh) and I don't, so it's more of a variation. However, I think pronouncing these phoneme as retroflex consonants would make a much distinct sound.
On a side note, I know a person (a native Pole it seems) that pronounces Polish /tɕ dʑ ɕ ʑ/ as [cç ɟʝ ç ʝ]. It actually took me several weeks to realize what is wrong with his sounds.
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
gestaltist wrote:Yes, I do. I curl the tongue backwards with the tip touching the hard palate.
Fascinating! I'm wondering whether there is variation amongst Polish speakers, or that my approximation of that sound is actually just dead wrong.
Well, I am a Pole (duh) and I don't, so it's more of a variation. However, I think pronouncing these phoneme as retroflex consonants would make a much distinct sound.
On a side note, I know a person (a native Pole it seems) that pronounces Polish /tɕ dʑ ɕ ʑ/ as [cç ɟʝ ç ʝ]. It actually took me several weeks to realize what is wrong with his sounds.
Hmm, on the other forum, I had asked if there was a Polish dialect that treats those consonants as full palatals, as I find full palatals easier to pronounce. Very hard to not make palatals.
ʾAšol ḵavad pulqam ʾifbižen lav ʾifšimeḻ lit maseḡrad lav lit n͛ubad. ʾUpulasim ṗal sa-panžun lav sa-ḥadṇ lav ṗal šarmaḵeš lit ʾaẏṭ waẏyadanun wižqanam.
- Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
gestaltist wrote:Yes, I do. I curl the tongue backwards with the tip touching the hard palate.
Fascinating! I'm wondering whether there is variation amongst Polish speakers, or that my approximation of that sound is actually just dead wrong.
Well, I am a Pole (duh) and I don't, so it's more of a variation. However, I think pronouncing these phoneme as retroflex consonants would make a much distinct sound.
On a side note, I know a person (a native Pole it seems) that pronounces Polish /tɕ dʑ ɕ ʑ/ as [cç ɟʝ ç ʝ]. It actually took me several weeks to realize what is wrong with his sounds.
Á yea, on the internet I name myself (by my conlang name) Arash-Hijunu Ihamek.
Some people mistake me for a muslim or an Arab or both when I discuss politics.
ʾAšol ḵavad pulqam ʾifbižen lav ʾifšimeḻ lit maseḡrad lav lit n͛ubad. ʾUpulasim ṗal sa-panžun lav sa-ḥadṇ lav ṗal šarmaḵeš lit ʾaẏṭ waẏyadanun wižqanam.
- Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
gestaltist wrote:Yes, I do. I curl the tongue backwards with the tip touching the hard palate.
Fascinating! I'm wondering whether there is variation amongst Polish speakers, or that my approximation of that sound is actually just dead wrong.
Well, I am a Pole (duh) and I don't, so it's more of a variation. However, I think pronouncing these phoneme as retroflex consonants would make a much distinct sound.
On a side note, I know a person (a native Pole it seems) that pronounces Polish /tɕ dʑ ɕ ʑ/ as [cç ɟʝ ç ʝ]. It actually took me several weeks to realize what is wrong with his sounds.
So how do you pronounce „sz“ and „ś“?
As a laminal postalveolar and alveolo-palatal, respectively.
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.
If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.
gestaltist wrote:Yes, I do. I curl the tongue backwards with the tip touching the hard palate.
Fascinating! I'm wondering whether there is variation amongst Polish speakers, or that my approximation of that sound is actually just dead wrong.
Well, I am a Pole (duh) and I don't, so it's more of a variation. However, I think pronouncing these phoneme as retroflex consonants would make a much distinct sound.
On a side note, I know a person (a native Pole it seems) that pronounces Polish /tɕ dʑ ɕ ʑ/ as [cç ɟʝ ç ʝ]. It actually took me several weeks to realize what is wrong with his sounds.
So how do you pronounce „sz“ and „ś“?
As a laminal postalveolar and alveolo-palatal, respectively.
Now that I think of it, I do have the laminal post-alveolar if next to another consonant.
Pole, the wrote:As a laminal postalveolar and alveolo-palatal, respectively.
I think I have the laminal postalveolar for "sz" as well, so I think I'm safe :). I'd have to record myself some day. The problem is that due to my hearing loss, I can't really perceive voiceless fricatives any more, so I can no longer correct myself based on hearing.
I took the liberty of translating part of my Malagasy lesson (taught by Mme Rakotobe) on names:
In early childhood
A generic name is given which does not reveal any personality. Bozy, Ketaka for a girl. Boto, Jao for a boy.
An official name is chosen either when the leaving the house ritual takes place or at the first haircut.
A derisive name is sometimes chosen to stave off fate e.g. Tavy 'pot'
When the first child is born
The parent gets a name in relation with this important event e.g. Maman'i Fanja 'Fanja's mother'
When a important event occurs (especially for kings, a victory or illness etc)
After death, especially for kings, a name is sometimes chosen which pays tribute to their status or their acts.
--
So traditionally Malagasy people have at least 3 forenames throughout their lifetime.
Generic name at birth - official name later - name change after birth of first child?
I generally forget to say, so if it's relevant and I don't mention it--I'm from Southern Michigan and speak Inland North American English. Yes, I have the Northern Cities Vowel Shift; no, I don't have the cot-caught merger; and it is called pop.
Oh, come on. While having a child is far from universal, it's pretty darn common. You know what they meant.
Besides, they didn't say "most Malagasy people have at least 3 forenames" or "all normal Malagasy people have at least 3 forenames", they said "traditionally Malagasy people have at least 3 forenames", which implies to me less "everyone must have 3 forenames" and more "the traditional/prototypical view in Malagasy culture of a Malagasy person's life includes them having a child, therefore the prototypical Malagasy person would be seen as having at least 3 forenames over the course of their life". (not an expert on Malagasy culture here, but that's what I gathered from jmcd's post)
To know whether or not it's accurate to apply this broadly to all Malagasy people, I supposed we'd have to look into the statistics of how many Malagasy people have children, but that's kind of silly when we all know what jmcd was saying.
I generally forget to say, so if it's relevant and I don't mention it--I'm from Southern Michigan and speak Inland North American English. Yes, I have the Northern Cities Vowel Shift; no, I don't have the cot-caught merger; and it is called pop.
linguoboy wrote:So understanding the underlying assumptions behind a false generalisation is reason not to question it?
I would think that since we're talking tradition here, that traditionally, all humans had children (or at least an enough high percentage that we could have traditions based on it), and that it really isn't much of a faulty generalisation.
linguoboy wrote:So understanding the underlying assumptions behind a false generalisation is reason not to question it?
I would think that since we're talking tradition here, that traditionally, all humans had children (or at least an enough high percentage that we could have traditions based on it), and that it really isn't much of a faulty generalisation.
I don't know of any society in which all members bear children and quite a few which have dedicated traditional roles for non-reproductive members. (My own, for instance.)
In traditional societies like these you need to get children in order to, you know, survive if you live to an older age. And for quite simple reasons it wasn't really a choice whether you got children or not (lack of anticonceptiva for example). Though there were childless people of course this often wasn't by choice. Either you died too early or you had some sort of disease or were infertile. Or there were social factors (for example no money for a spouse or to sustain children or to sustain a wife) Etcetera etcetera.
The luxury of being perfectly able to reproduce but simply refuse to is quite modern.
sirdanilot wrote:In traditional societies like these you need to get children in order to, you know, survive if you live to an older age. And for quite simple reasons it wasn't really a choice whether you got children or not (lack of anticonceptiva for example). Though there were childless people of course this often wasn't by choice. Either you died too early or you had some sort of disease or were infertile. Or there were social factors (for example no money for a spouse or to sustain children or to sustain a wife) Etcetera etcetera.
[citation needed]
sirdanilot wrote:The luxury of being perfectly able to reproduce but simply refuse to is quite modern.
Thus explaining why celibate clergy were so very thin on the ground in earlier times. Unlike today.
