> Salutations,

Greetings!

> I would not enter in this discussion because
> I have some conceptions(in pronunciation
> matters) really different from the most of
> you.But,one little inference made me enter
> now in the question.So,let's go straight to
> the question:

On *little* inference? Erhm....

> > > Of these 2 is defensible, 3 and 3.2 are correct,
> > > I am not
> > > certain about 1 and 4 while 3.1 and 5 are
> > > definitely incorrect.
> >
> > 5 is only incorrect because you've never tried it,
> > but wold otherwise be
> > correct as an assumption from English speakers
> >
> When you say that "it's correct to the english
> speakers",you're defending a feeble point-of-view.

I didn't say "correct to the English-speakers". I said it would be a
correct assumption. The difference is that one only holds true to the
English-speakers, the other states clearly that we can and often do try
to combine vowel sounds in English to reproduce words from other
languages as we borrow them. Anglicized words are better than no words
(well, in many cases, but that has more to do with the speaker than the
words themselves). Spelling somethng out the way it sounds in English is
not only valid practice, it allows people to understand more closely how
to pronounce a foreign word, especially when a fundamental grasp of that
language is not present.

> All languages have a nomadic nature,but (how a
> delightful paradox!!!)they have some axioms that
> should be followed.So,how to solve this problem?

In the interests of frith, I'll keep my mouth shut. :)

> Only assuming which all the "speaker beings" are
> capable to reach the hypothetic "herself" of
> other being that is a "natural speaker" of the
> language he is now trying to talk.

Of course, not accounting for dialectical variance, thought processes,
and specific oral musculature derived from years of speaking a
language...

> Reaching this "state of mind",entering in the
> "herself" of a "natural speaker" of the language
> he is trying to use,ALL the natural conceptions
> of your hypothetic "birth-language" MUST be abandoned.

If you wish to speak a language flawlessly, yes. However, most Americans
lack the dedication to even desire to attempt this. I am an exception to
the rule, as I try to be perfect in speech, but I don't expect the same
of others. To do so would be tantamount to trying to place myself as a
"better" which is culturally unacceptable because of both
socio-political and fundamentally ethical reasons. The fundamental ethic
in the USA is equality for all.

> This "abandon" it's a ineffaceable introduction to
> any effort in speak all languages not-natural to you.

This "abandon" is useless to anyone but the most serious students, who
values his own language so highly that all other methods are lost to
reason, thus reducing (in this person's mind only) the efficacy. There
needs to be patience where beginning students are concerned, or the end
result will be loss instead of perfection, where the over-sensitive
American psyche is concerned.

The true student will ask a question. The true teacher will answer it
without the need for being over-critical. The tendency to be overly
critical is evidence of a lack of discipline, under-education, and a
lack of understanding of the perspective of the student who asks.

> Of course someone might could say that,doing what
> was said above,all the singularity of the "being
> that is trying to speak another language than your
> own" it's lost.

They 'might could,' yes... Never mind that this is horrible English
grammar. It's incorrect, but one 'might could' say it. Let's talk about
your next brilliant statement before I continue...

> Certainly who say that has serious
> problems with his five wits.The singularity of the
> "speaker" isn't negated for his effort in follow
> the "languages rules" as any "natural speaker" of
> the language in question.

No, but allowances are generally made for the foreign speaker, as they
are trying and are making an effort, at least, to understand. It's
better than demanding that everyone speak English, wouldn't you say? I
would. We don't even demand that in American schools any more. In
Phoenix, my youngest sister was failing English class because she didn't
speak Spanish, which was the language that the class was taught in. And
no, it wasn't ESL (English as a Second Language), it was normal
high-school state-required English. Other than being fundamentally
wrong, this was not seen as problematic or even criticized by the state
government of Arizona. You see, we're a country where diversity is
celebrated.

Thus, the argument is that we are trying to learn a foreign language by
learning to pronounce. I'll get into the steps of this in a bit.

> This doesn't happens because
> all the combination,metric,rhythmics and contents of
> the words encountered in his message are really proper,
> express the unique and complete singularity of the
> speaker.

Finally! A true statement that I can agree with. However, in the context
you have used it, you are trying to assume that the speaker is an expert
in the language, or even that he or she desires more than the most basic
communication. I can assure you, this person is probably not interested
in perfection.

> Someone may could say too that "dead languages" don't
> have "living speakers" to we have absolute certainty
> how the pronunciation "essentially" works.

Yes, but the drift is essentially the flaw. We don't know how people
wpoke 200 years ago, because we had no method to record them. In 200
years, people are going to comment on how strange we sound compared to
them. The issue is instruction, not technical accuracy where none is
needed yet.

> In this case,the most prudent thing to do,it's follow
> what the majority accepts.The "majority acceptation"
> becomes the paradigm,the "metrics" that will give
> us the "proper space" to compose our "sonnet" with
> our own ideas,passions... singularity.

In this case, where the American speaker clearly is not an academic
major, such criticisms are lost and only serve as barriers to learning,
rather than as actual helps. However, if I made a blunder in
translating, you would be fully within your rights in being critical,
and I would welcome such criticism. This, however, was simply
unwarranted and arises from a cultural difference that you obviously
don't understand.

The most helpful thing you can do is to keep silent about it, or to take
it to email.

Metro_Bottom@...