"Kin Shi Huang"

[AriochIV]

One does not simply walk up to Sean Bean and tell him how to pronounce words.

 

[oakdragon]

One does not simply walk up to Sean Bean and tell him how to pronounce words.

One probably should. I, for one, am (irrationally) annoyed by the way he says "Amerikur".

 

[Kwami]

It's not Euro-centrism to just roll with saying a name wrong because of a Euro-centric typographical expectations (Anglo-centric actually, since even IN EUROPE that doesn't work), or expecting them to change their transliteration to fit the demands of Euro-centric (Anglo-centric, actually, again) pronunciation. People are literally using "but this is how ENGLISH says it!" as their argument, and there's nothing to do with Euro-centrism.

Excuse me, I need to go watch that clip of J Jonah Jameson laughing out loud from the first Spiderman movie on a loop for a few hours.

I think that you're entirely misunderstanding the situation. The complaint was that Qin doesn't look the way that it sounds in English. That's a pretty valid complaint, when you consider what Pinyin is for. It's for computer input, sure. But it's also for making it easier to English speakers to read Chinese. In that, it's not doing a very good job. Previous systems did a better job of representing the sound (e.g. /ch'/). And no, it's not racist or Euro-centric for me or anyone else to say this. It just isn't. Get over it.

Now, if someone were telling the Chinese to say words differently, or to stop using hanzi, or something, then we'd have a problem. But, that's just not what's happening here.

 

[Couch Tomato]

The issue is that unless you're correcting someone on something they've never said before, they're saying it right by their own area, even if it seems wrong to you. If someone says Qin Shi Huang with a /k/, that's fine to correct them, but if someone says Beijing with a /ʒ/, that's just how it's said where they're from. Common words shouldn't be corrected, as if they were wrong for their area, they'd have already been corrected a long time ago.

Your example with a technical word is largely irrelevant as: 1) technical language can have differences and no standard pronunciation, 2) if there is a particular pronunciation used by the whole field, then that's quite a special case. There's a big difference between finding out that the word you just read out wasn't said right, and being corrected on terms you've been using for decades without issue.

Conflating an incorrect pronunciation with a lack of understanding of history is quite odd as well. Plenty of people learn about history through reading, and it's quite common for people to have seen names many times without ever knowing the pronunciation, even people with a great deal of education. It's very possible for someone to be able to list all the Chinese dynasties, without knowing how to even vaguely pronounce a single one.

Regarding technical language, it's not largely irrelevant. There are some differences, but for the most part, most things have an actual pronunciation when they come into existence. The words I'm talking about are medical, and despite there being thousands of medical terms, there's still a way of saying them, even if some don't make sense off the bat. There are many MD trainees pronouncing things wrong, and there are doctors that correct them, but then there are others who aren't aware of the correct pronunciation themselves. That's how it is. As you said, a lot of the things we learn are from reading now, so that's why people simply don't know how to actually say things. And the thing is, the internet plays a big part of that. With the advent of the internet, we've had so much more information at our hands in the form of text. But now with more recent things like YouTube, streams, Podcasts, etc, people's voices are getting heard too. And when there are fewer "experts" (like teachers and professors) saying new words and names for people, the incorrect pronunciation just continues to grow like a virus.

The part of history is about primary school education. Most people's education of (world) history comes from primary school, because face it -- most people aren't going to go read up on Chinese history on their own. Yet from my experience, the history we get -- in America at least -- is extremely Eurocentric. And like I said before, I do believe that there is actually merit to Eurocentrism, because much of modern history is shaped by Europe. But at the same time, we should expect at least a basic education of other major regions like the Far East, Middle East, and India.. and that means learning about basic things like the Chinese dynasties (Qin to Qing), Japanese feudal history, and the Islamic caliphates. All of these places have weird pronunciations, but whatever. We learn how to pronounce Odysseus and other weird Greek names.

I think that you're entirely misunderstanding the situation. The complaint was that Qin doesn't look the way that it sounds in English. That's a pretty valid complaint, when you consider what Pinyin is for. It's for computer input, sure. But it's also for making it easier to English speakers to read Chinese. In that, it's not doing a very good job.

That's incorrect. Pinyin was not created for computer input, because computers were in their infancy at the time. Nor was it created for English speakers (although other Romanizations were). It was created to make a standard system and to improve literacy for the Chinese. And it did a great job of that.

As for not doing a very good job of being able to read Chinese, I'm not sure where you're saying "it's not a very good job" either. It does a damn good job. I've tried to learn Mandarin in the past, but had a lot of difficulty with Zhuyin and other systems being taught by Taiwanese schools. When I learned in pinyin, it snapped instantly, and many other students had no difficulty. It's hard if you're not actually trying to learn the language, but then good luck for anyone trying to pronounce any foreign language. People butcher things if they don't even have a simple grasp of the orthography.

 

[Ozisl]

Brits always say "Amerikur", and pretty much anything ending in -er with -ur. They are also completely oblivious to their practice, even when hearing it themselves.

 

[Kwami]

That's incorrect. Pinyin was not created for computer input, because computers were in their infancy at the time. Nor was it created for English speakers (although other Romanizations were). It was created to make a standard system and to improve literacy for the Chinese. And it did a great job of that.

I don't care why it was created. I care about what it's used for today. Today, it's used primarily for computer input, allowing a Chinese speaker to "read" a different dialect (for instance, a Cantonese speaker reading a speech in Mandarin), and for making Chinese readable for non-speakers. Chinese people, of course, can just read the Chinese characters.

As for not doing a very good job of being able to read Chinese, I'm not sure where you're saying "it's not a very good job" either. It does a damn good job.

I'd say that this thread is evidence that it isn't doing an adequate job in helping non-speakers read Chinese. I'm not entirely sure why you're arguing the point. Unless you spend time to learn Pinyin, you can't read Pinyin. An ideal romanization system would be simpler to use.

I've tried to learn Mandarin in the past, but had a lot of difficulty with Zhuyin and other systems being taught by Taiwanese schools.

You mean bopomofo, right? Why not call it bopomofo? Bopomofo is pretty much one of the best words ever. Bopomofo!

In that case, we'd use ㄑ for /ch'/. You know why that's great? There's no ambiguity! You don't see ㄑ and intuitively think /ch'/, but you also don't think /ch/ or /q/ or /k/ or whatever.

Plus, it looks like the hiragana く, which happens to be my favorite. Sadly, they have different origins.

When I learned in pinyin, it snapped instantly, and many other students had no difficulty. It's hard if you're not actually trying to learn the language, but then good luck for anyone trying to pronounce any foreign language. People butcher things if they don't even have a simple grasp of the orthography.

Well, sure. Everyone sucks at other languages. Some people take time to learn a second or third language, whether for business, necessity, or pleasure, but those people still suck at most languages. Not knowing how to pronounce them all doesn't make them racists or Euro-centric. It just means that they have a finite amount of time to live and that their interests lie elsewhere.

I guess my overall point is pretty simple. Pinyin is not adequate for reading Chinese unless you spend time to learn Pinyin. The fact that /ch'/ is written as /q/ is evidence of that. At best, Pinyin is a decent system for getting you kind of almost there. Mentioning the negative aspects of Pinyin, or wishing that it was a better system, is not Euro-centric or whatever nonsense.

And it's not like Pinyin has been around forever and it's some kind of sacred, beloved system. It's just kind of a hack that the Chinese use to get around some of the limitations built into having a multi-thousand character writing system. I really don't think that anyone would be insulted if someone didn't like Pinyin. Maybe the folks that made it would be a little sad. Maybe.

 

[Menzies]

Regarding technical language, it's not largely irrelevant. There are some differences, but for the most part, most things have an actual pronunciation when they come into existence. The words I'm talking about are medical, and despite there being thousands of medical terms, there's still a way of saying them, even if some don't make sense off the bat.

A lot of people only interact with technical language in journals, and as such it tends to develop multiple pronunciation, in many cases centering around labs or large research groups. Medical terms are no different in that, particularly as many doctors, as just said, only interact with such terms while reading journals.

There are many MD trainees pronouncing things wrong, and there are doctors that correct them, but then there are others who aren't aware of the correct pronunciation themselves. That's how it is. As you said, a lot of the things we learn are from reading now, so that's why people simply don't know how to actually say things. And the thing is, the internet plays a big part of that. With the advent of the internet, we've had so much more information at our hands in the form of text. But now with more recent things like YouTube, streams, Podcasts, etc, people's voices are getting heard too. And when there are fewer "experts" (like teachers and professors) saying new words and names for people, the incorrect pronunciation just continues to grow like a virus.

If there are many people saying it, and nobody correcting it, then the pronunciation is correct. Language isn't some glorious marble pillar that we're describing from afar, it's fluid, it changes. Those people you describe as "saying it wrong" are saying it right as long as everyone else around them understandings what is meant, and has no issue with it.

Teachers are actually one of the professions that spreads "mispronunciations" the most, bizarrely enough. That's not a bad thing, it's just a thing, as they too (should they be competent) also interact with language in literature.

The part of history is about primary school education. Most people's education of (world) history comes from primary school, because face it -- most people aren't going to go read up on Chinese history on their own. Yet from my experience, the history we get -- in America at least -- is extremely Eurocentric. And like I said before, I do believe that there is actually merit to Eurocentrism, because much of modern history is shaped by Europe. But at the same time, we should expect at least a basic education of other major regions like the Far East, Middle East, and India.. and that means learning about basic things like the Chinese dynasties (Qin to Qing), Japanese feudal history, and the Islamic caliphates. All of these places have weird pronunciations, but whatever. We learn how to pronounce Odysseus and other weird Greek names.

Modern history is shaped by the whole world, Eurocentrism isn't something that should be defended wholesale. There's some logic to a country focusing more on it's own history, but attention should be paid to history of major regions.

You seem strangely obsessed by pronunciation, I absolutely guarantee that we'd have different pronunciations for many names in Greek texts, and neither of us would be considered wrong where we live.

 

[Couch Tomato]

A lot of people only interact with technical language in journals, and as such it tends to develop multiple pronunciation, in many cases centering around labs or large research groups. Medical terms are no different in that, particularly as many doctors, as just said, only interact with such terms while reading journals.

Many terms are in journals, but they're also spoken to people in the same group. I honestly can't even think of a good example of a case where people would not be familiar with technical words and not understand them, if they've already been trained. Regarding medical terms, that's completely untrue. All the initial learning is done in medical school, and a lot of it is through verbal teaching, only reinforced by textbooks. Yes, there's a lot from journals, but that only adds more information to the fundamental things we know.

If there are many people saying it, and nobody correcting it, then the pronunciation is correct. Language isn't some glorious marble pillar that we're describing from afar, it's fluid, it changes. Those people you describe as "saying it wrong" are saying it right as long as everyone else around them understandings what is meant, and has no issue with it

I feel like this whole "language is fluid" is really taken out of context. Yes, language is fluid and evolves. There are changes happening every day with new words being added to the lexicon. Old words can take new meanings (for example, "they" now being more often used as a singular pronoun to refer to neutral genders). But that's where the evolution is -- new words and definitions, and the other is in regional variation with minor phonemic changes that apply to whole groups of words -- not one single mispronunciation. There are a few instances where mispronunciations become so common that they're even added to the dictionary, but that's extremely rare as a whole.

As for proper names like what I brought up initially with Qin... that's not subject to "fluid" changes in languages. You were given a name, and there's only one way to pronounce it -- by the way you (and by extension, your parents) pronounce it. For example, Stephen is often pronounced "Steeven." But if you (as an English speaker) pronounce it like that for Stephen Curry, you're wrong, period. Then as for names that are difficult to pronounce, like Qin, as long as you come close, that's acceptable. Pronouncing Qin and Tokimune as Kin and Tokeemoon are bad because at least as an English speaker, you're easily capable of doing better. Even if Sean Bean pronounced Tokimune as "Tokeemoonee" instead of "Tokeemooneh" then that's fine.

Teachers are actually one of the professions that spreads "mispronunciations" the most, bizarrely enough. That's not a bad thing, it's just a thing, as they too (should they be competent) also interact with language in literature.

I won't argue with that. Although one good teacher that teaches the correct way can go a long way.

Modern history is shaped by the whole world, Eurocentrism isn't something that should be defended wholesale. There's some logic to a country focusing more on it's own history, but attention should be paid to history of major regions.

Basically what I just said

You seem strangely obsessed by pronunciation, I absolutely guarantee that we'd have different pronunciations for many names in Greek texts, and neither of us would be considered wrong where we live.

I'm a linguistics nerd, so I can't help it.

Yes, there are different ways, as long as they're in the realm of acceptable. For example, Aeschylus. It can vary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeschylus), but if you pronounce it as "Eshilis," then that's wrong. Pronouncing Achilles as "A chills" is wrong. Things like that. They are traps as much as Qin is for Kin, but we're taught to know better.

 

[Menzies]

Many terms are in journals, but they're also spoken to people in the same group. I honestly can't even think of a good example of a case where people would not be familiar with technical words and not understand them, if they've already been trained. Regarding medical terms, that's completely untrue. All the initial learning is done in medical school, and a lot of it is through verbal teaching, only reinforced by textbooks. Yes, there's a lot from journals, but that only adds more information to the fundamental things we know.

There are plenty of new terms entering the literature at any time, and if you've been in such circumstances you'd quickly realise that the way that terms are said can vary vastly from lab to lab, particularly if a research team is lead by a particularly strong personality and has a core group that have been there for a while.

If your doctors only did their learning in medical school I'd strongly recommend finding new yourself a new set of doctors. Different medical schools speak different ways with the same terms as well. Not even spelling is consistent across the medical community. For example, Americans can't spell Haemophilia.

I feel like this whole "language is fluid" is really taken out of context. Yes, language is fluid and evolves. There are changes happening every day with new words being added to the lexicon. Old words can take new meanings (for example, "they" now being more often used as a singular pronoun to refer to neutral genders). But that's where the evolution is -- new words and definitions, and the other is in regional variation with minor phonemic changes that apply to whole groups of words -- not one single mispronunciation. There are a few instances where mispronunciations become so common that they're even added to the dictionary, but that's extremely rare as a whole.

The 'singular they' is actually very old in the English language. Not using they as a singular pronoun was the more modern change, but that's weakened again. I for one prefer the 'singular they' to many of the alternatives, particularly as people no longer accept 'he' as a gender neutral (or gender non-specific) pronoun.

Singular pronunciations change all the time, while the sum of their parts is seen in large scale shifts in languages. Don't confuse the study of averages with the individual parts. It's very possible (and common) for singular words to change for one reason or another, particularly when dealing with what were loanwords. For example, there are two perfectly acceptable readings of the term 'Celtic' in modern English, though one of them was a 19th century invention.

There are plenty of mispronunciations that are added to the dictionary, how do you think we got American English?

As for proper names like what I brought up initially with Qin... that's not subject to "fluid" changes in languages. You were given a name, and there's only one way to pronounce it -- by the way you (and by extension, your parents) pronounce it. For example, Stephen is often pronounced "Steeven." But if you (as an English speaker) pronounce it like that for Stephen Curry, you're wrong, period. Then as for names that are difficult to pronounce, like Qin, as long as you come close, that's acceptable. Pronouncing Qin and Tokimune as Kin and Tokeemoon are bad because at least as an English speaker, you're easily capable of doing better. Even if Sean Bean pronounced Tokimune as "Tokeemoonee" instead of "Tokeemooneh" then that's fine.

Proper nouns shouldn't be fluid, at least when speaking with the person they are referring too. However, with terms of historical leaders and figures they most certainly are. The harrowing tale of how the English language settled on the name "Jesus" is but one example of how much names can be changed over the generations.

If you read up earlier, you can see my own discussion of dealing with proper names when talking with and about a living person. Thing become different when talking about people who have taken on larger than life characteristics though. Dr. Seuss could tell you a thing or two about that.

I do agree that there is a fairly standard pronunciation of Qin Shi Huang and Hojo Tokimune that we should try and have within the context of the game, but at the same time both are fairly far from their original pronunciations. Qin Shi Huang oddly enough is nearly nothing like the Emperor himself would have said it, it is instead the Mandarin Chinese for his title.

I won't argue with that. Although one good teacher that teaches the correct way can go a long way.

Teachers can only teach as they were taught, or as they taught themselves. Variations that they have heard will be spread. There's literally nothing wrong with that (for the record the use of literally' to mean 'figuratively' or add emphasis is also very old within the English language).

Basically what I just said

There were some differences there.

I'm a linguistics nerd, so I can't help it.

Judging by how you're speaking you're a prescriptivist. A prescriptivist linguistics nerd is an oxymoron. Linguistics celebrates the differences and variances in language, you seem to emphasise the opposite.

Yes, there are different ways, as long as they're in the realm of acceptable. For example, Aeschylus. It can vary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeschylus), but if you pronounce it as "Eshilis," then that's wrong. Pronouncing Achilles as "A chills" is wrong. Things like that. They are traps as much as Qin is for Kin, but we're taught to know better.

Now, on the point of being a "linguistics nerd", for the love of all that is spoken, do not try and render your pronunciation to English orthography like that. It literally helps nothing.

It's like saying: "It's 'mome raths', with 'rath' to rhyme with bath". It is entirely unhelpful. Even assuming that the consonants are kept the same between readers, it's the vowels that cause problems as they vary so much between readers. For example, bath can be read as /bɑːθ/ or /bæθ/ in the example before, meaning that description in text is unhelpful. Aeschylus is generally pronounced with an unvoiced final vowel, and so I could render it into English orthography as: Ehskilus, Eskulus, Eskilus, Eskulas, Eskilis, etc. I'm sure a lot of readers would read each of those differently as well, and I doubt many would read it with my original intent. Even going for "Eh-sk-lus" doesn't help, as many speakers will take different sounds from each of those.

I'm all for promoting an understanding of how we traditionally pronounce such things in English, and for specialised terms that aren't rapidly changing (as you seen in science and medicine), mostly names like Qin Shi Huang, I do agree it's a good idea to teach the standard form to people. That doesn't apply to absolutely everything however, and it's perfectly acceptable for people to have other forms, the forms we use themselves are already vastly different to the originals.

 

[lindsay40k]

Leave it aht, yoff. Are Sean talks reet good, berra than t'poshos what rhyme 'house' and 'mice' like when Cam'run blethers on. Tha's lucky e's not talking proppa Yorkshire like worree duz dahn t'chippy.

 

[Quoth the Raven]

The thing is, mispronouncing something is usually not because that person has never studied that history, but that they have read about it and pronounced the word it how it sounds while reading it because they did not know any better. That is part of why I advocate for spelling foreign words in English as close as possible to how they are supposed to sound.

 

[Menzies]

The thing is, mispronouncing something is usually not because that person has never studied that history, but that they have read about it and pronounced the word it how it sounds while reading it because they did not know any better. That is part of why I advocate for spelling foreign words in English as close as possible to how they are supposed to sound.

The problem is that English orthography isn't regular enough for that to work without massive spelling reforms outright. The variance in how the language is spoken also makes such reforms difficult.

 

[Zaarin]

The problem is that English orthography isn't regular enough for that to work without massive spelling reforms outright. The variance in how the language is spoken also makes such reforms difficult.

This is why a spelling reform of English would be less than helpful. Take a word like bright, which can be pronounced anywhere from [bɹ̱ˁɑɪ̯ʔ] to [bɻəɪ̯t] to [bɹɔɪ̯t] to [brəi̯t]--but no matter your native dialect, you still know what is meant by the written word bright. Any spelling reform based on a single dialect would be no improvement over our current ossified 17th century orthography. (For my part, I love orthographies that are diachronic rather than synchronic; I absolutely adore French and Irish orthographies, for instance, while Modern Spanish orthography is boringly straightforward. I think ossified orthographies like English, French, and Irish have character. Plus it means I can read texts written 500 years ago without translation. Try that with a language that has had modern spelling reforms--like Spanish.

 

[Menzies]

This is why a spelling reform of English would be less than helpful. Take a word like bright, which can be pronounced anywhere from [bɹ̱ˁɑɪ̯ʔ] to [bɻəɪ̯t] to [bɹɔɪ̯t] to [brəi̯t]--but no matter your native dialect, you still know what is meant by the written word bright. Any spelling reform based on a single dialect would be no improvement over our current ossified 17th century orthography. (For my part, I love orthographies that are diachronic rather than synchronic; I absolutely adore French and Irish orthographies, for instance, while Modern Spanish orthography is boringly straightforward. I think ossified orthographies like English, French, and Irish have character. Plus it means I can read texts written 500 years ago without translation. Try that with a language that has had modern spelling reforms--like Spanish.

To be honest though, reading 500 year old texts in languages like English still isn't easy as: 1) the language has changed a great deal in vocabulary and structure, 2) it was before standardisation of spelling, 3) without knowledge of slang of the time a lot of meaning is lost even getting past 1 and 2. For example, Shakespeare's work was a good fraction sex jokes.

Equally American English has seen spelling reform fairly recently, hence we have things written like 'Civilization'.

Spelling reform isn't something easily doable in modern English sadly, and that leads to situations like this thread. Of well.

 

[Zaarin]

To be honest though, reading 500 year old texts in languages like English still isn't easy as: 1) the language has changed a great deal in vocabulary and structure, 2) it was before standardisation of spelling, 3) without knowledge of slang of the time a lot of meaning is lost even getting past 1 and 2. For example, Shakespeare's work was a good fraction sex jokes.

Equally American English has seen spelling reform fairly recently, hence we have things written like 'Civilization'.

Spelling reform isn't something easily doable in modern English sadly, and that leads to situations like this thread. Of well.

Sure, it takes concentration and a familiarity with how meanings have changed, but it's certainly not impossible. Even Chaucer is readable with concentration (sadly, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is not--North West Midland Middle English is much further removed from Modern English than Chaucer's London dialect). (If anyone is looking for a good translation of Sir Gawain into modern English, I highly recommend Tolkien's as the finest I have read--and I've read several, as Sir Gawain is my favorite piece of Medieval literature. Which is also partly why I hated T.H. White's The Once and Future King.)

 

[I_pity_the_fool]

"Sithia"

Uh, that's how it's pronounced in English. /ˈsɪθiə/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia

 

[Kwami]

Sure, it takes concentration and a familiarity with how meanings have changed, but it's certainly not impossible. Even Chaucer is readable with concentration (sadly, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is not--North West Midland Middle English is much further removed from Modern English than Chaucer's London dialect). (If anyone is looking for a good translation of Sir Gawain into modern English, I highly recommend Tolkien's as the finest I have read--and I've read several, as Sir Gawain is my favorite piece of Medieval literature. Which is also partly why I hated T.H. White's The Once and Future King.)

You have to try pretty hard to make Chaucer readable, and I doubt that most people can do it without a lot of help. Even if you can almost read the words, you'd have to train to read them aloud.

To borrow from the Wikipedia example:

'Weypyng and waylyng, care and oother sorwe
I knowe ynough, on even and a-morwe,'
Quod the Marchant, 'and so doon oother mo
That wedded been.'

I mean, I guess it's better than Sir Gawain, but...

Some more fun:

A somonour was ther with us in that place,
That hadde a fyr-reed cherubynnes face,
For saucefleem he was, with eyen narwe.
As hoot he was and lecherous as a sparwe,
With scalled browes blake, and piled berd,
Of his visage children were aferd.
Ther nas quyk-silver, lytarge, ne brymstoon,
Boras, ceruce, ne oille of tartre noon,
Ne oynement, that wolde clense and byte,
That hym myghte helpen of his whelkes white,
Nor of the knobbes sittynge on his chekes.

I rather like it! It sounds more German than does modern English. Maybe with some Scots English thrown in, too. It's great!

But to the average speaker, it's not very readable.

 

[God of Kings]

"Sithia"

See here:

Jump to 2:18

Bean pronounces the first syllable as Scythian as in "scythe" rather than as in "Sith."

Scythia should be pronounced as in "Sith" not "scythe" contrary to how Bean pronounces it.

 

[Zaarin]

You have to try pretty hard to make Chaucer readable, and I doubt that most people can do it without a lot of help. Even if you can almost read the words, you'd have to train to read them aloud.

To borrow from the Wikipedia example:



I mean, I guess it's better than Sir Gawain, but...

Some more fun:



I rather like it! It sounds more German than does modern English. Maybe with some Scots English thrown in, too. It's great!

But to the average speaker, it's not very readable.

Eh, I'm a lit major and a linguistics geek. To be fair, I didn't get past the Knight's Tale before I needed a break, and I haven't returned to it yet. But with a little knowledge of the philological history of English, it's definitely doable.