russ ([info]goulo) wrote,
@ 2008-02-03 18:35:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
tajemnice języka polskiego
Since the vowel i is also used to mark the palatalization of labial and velar consonants and the palatalness of ń (before vowels), the spellings of the type pi are ambiguous: kopią 'they kick' is pronounced ko[p'ǫ] but kopią 'copy (instr.)' is pronounced kopj[ǫ]. (Beginning Polish by Alexander M. Schenker, page 86)

Nu la pola supozeble havas racian konsekvencan rilaton inter literumado kaj parolo, sed tio ne veras. Mi jam delonge sciis pri ekzemple ke "au" povas esti dusilaba "a-u" (ekz "nauczyciel") aux unusilaba "aŭ" (ekz "restauracja"). Sed lastatempe mi eksciis pri vere subtila afero dank' al la libro "Beginning Polish" de Schenker, ke sendepende de apuda literoj, unu vorto povas havi du parolmanierojn, ekz ke simpla vorto "kopią" povas soni kiel "ko-pią" (se temas pri "ili piedbatas") aŭ "kopj-ą" (se temas pri "kopioj")... Kiam mi instruas la anglan, poloj plendas pri tiaj vortoj en la angla. :)

Polish supposedly has a rational consistent relation between spelling and pronunciation, but that's not true. I've known for a long time about things like "au" can be 2-syllable "a-u" (e.g. "nauczyciel") or 1-syllable "ow" (as in English "cow") (e.g. "restauracja"). But recently I learned about this truly subtle issue that words like "kopią" povas soni kiel "ko-pią" (if it means "they kick") aŭ "kopj-ą" (if it means "copies")... When I'm teaching English, Poles complain about such words in English. :)

Podobno litera ma tylko jedną wymowę po polsku ale to nie prawda. Od dawna wiem, że "au" ma 2 sylaby w "naucyzciel" ale 1 sylabę w "restauracja". No ostatnio przeczytałem o cymś subtelniejszego, że "kopią" może być "ko-pią" (czasownik: "oni kopią") albo "kopj-ą" (narzędnik rzeczownika "kopia"). To nie sprawiedliwe, że Polacy narzekają na trudności angielskiego, kiedy polski ma podobne trudności! :)

(Post a new comment)


[info]elgrande
2008-02-03 09:38 pm UTC (link)
That sounds annoying because in the worst case it means that you have to look up the exact pronunciation of a lot of words in a dictionary. Especially if as in this case the distinction seems to be one that to your ears seems subtle. (I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to tell those two "pi" pronunciations apart either since German doesn't have palatalised consonants).

I suspect that while a reasonable relation between spelling and pronunciation is helpful for native speakers and learners alike, I guess the details differ. If there is a one-to-one relation between sounds and letters as in Esperanto, everyone is happy. But for native speakers, who know the spoken language first, it is basically enough if the way you spell a word is unambiguous once you know its pronunciation (I once read that with very few exceptions Italian is supposed to be like that). And for learners - at least visual learners, I guess - what matters much more is that once you know the spelling of a word, you also know how to pronounce it (Spanish is like that).

Perhaps the Poles therefore do not pay much attention to the ambiguity of the "pi" thing while it is really annoying for you and while words with same spelling in English but different pronunciation are difficult for them.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]goulo
2008-02-04 08:08 am UTC (link)
In fairness, the "pi" thing is pretty subtle. I haven't started asking Poles about this one yet, but I suspect most of them will tell me that "of course" there is only one pronunciation of the word "kopią" :)

But then they often also tell me that unlike English, Polish has no dialects or variations in pronunciation, until I point out counterexamples (like how "ę" at the end of a word is often pronounced "e" but some people pronounce it "ę" as the spelling would suggest). The Schenker book I quoted above has lots of info and examples about different pronunciation in Warsaw and Cracow of many common words, which I thought was interesting, although way too subtle/advanced for me to worry about in practice now. :)

In general, Poles seem less self-aware about their language than my English speaking friends seem to be about English. That may just be because I have a lot of very geeky English-speaking friends, though. :) E.g. many Poles I've talked with have never even noticed that a direct object is in the accusative in positive sentences "I see the book = Widzę książkę", but the genitive in negative sentences "I don't see the book = Nie widzę książki". The idea that the case of a direct object would change based on whether the verb is positive or negative seems, um, surprising and odd to me (Polish is the first language I was aware of that does this). I point this out and they often go "Oh, wow, you're right... I never thought about that before!" For me, that's amazing not to notice such things.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]elgrande
2008-02-04 12:45 pm UTC (link)
"In fairness, the "pi" thing is pretty subtle."

I know of no subtle distinctions that exist in my lect of German - either it's a phonetic distinction between two sounds (phonemes) matters or they are just a variation of the same sound (phoneme). But between those where the distinction matters I know of none where I'd say the distinction is "subtle". There are some distinctions in other German accents including standard German pronunciation that seem pretty subtle to me but some people from other regions have found the merger of those sounds in my accent to be very funny. "(Probably roughly analogous how your accent doesn't distinguish "pin" and "pen" and so that distinction in standard pronunciation may sound subtle to you but not to speakers of other accents.) And in foreign languages such as English distinctions that seem very subtle to me don't seem to be subtle to native speakers. I'm therefore tempted to believe that there are basically no "subtle" distinctions between distinct phonemes in a particular accent from the point of view of a native speaker of that accent.

"But then they often also tell me that unlike English, Polish has no dialects or variations in pronunciation, until I point out counterexamples (like how "ę" at the end of a word is often pronounced "e" but some people pronounce it "ę" as the spelling would suggest)."

I also think German speakers tend to underestimate the differences between accents and dialects. My sister even once thought we spoke standard German exactly like people speak on TV until I pointed out those "subtle" distinctions of standard pronunciation, which she had never been aware of. Nevertheless, I think Germans are aware that the German accents and dialects vary largely and that the dialects are often not mutually intelligible.
So, I find it curious that people think of Polish as so homogeneous. Is it really rather uniform? Otherwise, I can't imagine why the Poles themselves wouldn't notice the differences much.

"The idea that the case of a direct object would change based on whether the verb is positive or negative seems, um, surprising and odd to me (Polish is the first language I was aware of that does this)."

In French you use "de" after a negative verb rather than an article, as in "J'ai une voiture" (I have a car) vs. "Je n'ai pas de voiture" (I don't have a car). This seems a bit similar to the Polish thing since "de" also expressed possession. But "de" directly before a noun often also means "of" in the sense of Esperanto "da". So, I explain that grammatical construction to myself by thinking of "ne... pas" (not) as something that is in a sense also an adverb showing quantity, a bit like "neniom". But I have no idea whether that "explanation" also works in Polish, in particular whether the Polish genitive also means something like Esperanto "da".

Anyway, I agree that it is surprising that the Poles don't realise that thing. It should show when for some reason someone forgets to put "not" and then there is simply the object in the genitive, possibly in puns and when a Polish speaker changes a sentence in a text from positive to negative or vice versa.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]orangepaisley
2008-02-03 10:53 pm UTC (link)
When I'm teaching English
Does Poland have a high demand for native-speaking teachers of English? Just curious.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]goulo
2008-02-04 07:58 am UTC (link)
Sufficiently high, yes. I read a market report in 2005 that said Poland was actually the best European country for teaching English at that time (in terms of demand). So I lucked out in that regard. :)

One interesting thing is that some people care about learning US English or British English, and want a native speaker with the appropriate accent. Others don't care; they just want a native speaker (caring more about grammar and vocabulary than details of pronunciation).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Anonymous)
2008-02-06 04:55 pm UTC (link)
"Mi jam delonge sciis pri ekzemple ke "au" povas esti dusilaba "a-u" (ekz "nauczyciel") aux unusilaba "aŭ" (ekz "restauracja")."

Granda parto de poleparolantoj (ankaŭ i.a. radiaj kaj televidaj parolistoj) nekorekte diftonge prononcas la vorton “nauka” (scienco) kiel “náŭka” anstataŭ “naúka”. Tio ŝuldiĝas al la fakto, ke polaj fremdadevenaj vortoj kun la finaĵo “-ika/-yka” havas netipan akcentadon – sur la tria silabo devortfine anstataŭ sur la dua (= antaŭlasta), ekz.: botánika, Améryka, fízyka, lógika, akústyka. Multegaj poloj prononcas tiujn vortojn: botaníka, Amerýka, fizýka, logíka, akustýka ktp. La lingve pli konsciaj poloj, sentante la ĉi-lastan akcentadon neakceptebla, pekas per hiperkorekta akcentado de certaj vortoj indiĝenaj, ekz.: náuka, bijátyka (interbatiĝo), pijátyka (drinkado, diboĉfesteno).

"simpla vorto "kopią" povas soni kiel "ko-pią" (se temas pri "ili piedbatas") aŭ "kopj-ą" (se temas pri "kopioj")"

Aliaj ekzemploj: Mania /mańa/ (Manjo, Marinjo) – mania /nańja/ (manio); dania /dańa/ (pladoj) – Dania /dańja/ – Danio.
Kvankam la ĝenerala regulo diras, ke la literkuniĝo rz prononciĝas kiel ż, tio ne ĉiam validas, ekz.: zmarznąć /zmar-znąć/ (frostiĝi), obmierzły /obmier-zły/ (aĉa, terura, abomeninda), murza /mur-za/ (murzo). Tamen tiuj vortoj ne estas esceptoj de la regulo, ĉar ili havas alian etimologion. La vortoj enhavantaj rz prononcatan kiel ż (ekz.: morze – maro, rzeka – rivero, orzech – nukso) suferis fonetikan evoluon. En la praslava kaj malnovpola lingvoj ili enhavis palatan r: /moŕe, ŕeka, oŕech/, poste ĝi transformiĝis en rj: /morje, rjeka, orjech/, poste en rż: /morże, rżeka, orżech/, poste la origina vortkomenca r tute forperdiĝis: /może, żeka, ożech/, tamen la ortografio konservis ĝin. Estas interese, ke tiu ĉi evoluo okazis en nur du slavaj lingvoj: la pola kaj la ĉeĥa, sed en la ĉeĥa ĝi ne atingis la lastan stadion. La ĉeĥa ekvivalento de pola rz en tiaj vortoj estas ř.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…