Don Quixote English Translation
I stumbled onto this
It looks like a translation of the whole book, I only checked chapter 1
http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/mdecervantes/bl-mdecervantes-p1-1.htm
11 Answers
lazarus1907 said:
samdie said:
Oddly enough, the Japanese, who seem to delight in distorting English pronunciations, are better, on the whole, than English speakers with such things in borrowings from other European languages as in "platon" for Plato, "roma" for Rome, etc.
The Japanese actually do their best to faithfully transcribe foreign words using their extremely limited phonetic repertoire (James knows more about this than any of us); unfortunately, words often become unrecognisable, but they always get the closest pattern. I have to say in their favour, that they are the only ones in Asia (as far as I know) that acknowledge the Romans for the alphabet we all use (Romanji = Roman alphabet); the rest of the people in Asia call it English alphabet. It is funny that the word for the Roman alphabet is is Greek, and not Latin, by the way (in Spanish we also have "abecedario").
Yes but
1) when studying English in high-school (I visited a class once) they persist in using "kana" (almost always, katakana) to record their pronunciations of English words. This is similar to (but, if anything, even worse) than the suggestion that "rooo-eese" is a reasonable approximation of "Ruiz"). As the most obvious example (from the point of view of the English speaker) the "l"/"r" distinction is completely lost when transcribed with kana (and this is what most Japanese students do). How can they hope to learn the distinction when the notes that they take eliminate it.
(Really trivial correction) it's "romaji" not ""romanji".
Despite their use of the (more precise) term "romaji", they are quite accepting of such expressions as "How do you write this in English'" as meaning "How do you write this in romaji'".
samdie said:
Oddly enough, the Japanese, who seem to delight in distorting English pronunciations, are better, on the whole, than English speakers with such things in borrowings from other European languages as in "platon" for Plato, "roma" for Rome, etc.
The Japanese actually do their best to faithfully transcribe foreign words using their extremely limited phonetic repertoire (James knows more about this than any of us); unfortunately, words often become unrecognisable, but they always get the closest pattern. I have to say in their favour, that they are the only ones in Asia (as far as I know) that acknowledge the Romans for the alphabet we all use (Romanji = Roman alphabet); the rest of the people in Asia call it English alphabet. It is funny that the word for the Roman alphabet is is Greek, and not Latin, by the way (in Spanish we also have "abecedario").
lazarus1907 said:
samdie said:
It pains me to admit this but, yes, the initial vowel sound like the "a" in car. As I'm sure you're aware, English speakers have a long history (probably dating back to the first loanword) of brutalizing the pronunciation of foreign words.
I'm not sure whether brutalize would be the right word. Most languages tend to modify foreign words to adapt them to their own phonetics, and specially when these words have sounds they can't easily pronounce, but English seems to "enjoy" radically changing the sounds in any case, sometimes modifying the sound of the word, not to make it sound like the original, but according to how it is written (and later change the spelling, of course), or modifying it, sometimes beyond recognition. One of endless examples is Thule, which in Swedish, Greek, Spanish, and most European languages I've checked, sounds like "Tule/tulé" (using "Spanish" phonetics), with an initial T, and similar sound, but in English sounds like "ziuli" ("Spanish" phonetics). Another two funny ones are Bermuda island, and Sherry.
Those examples would all fall under my notion of "brutalizing". We (English speakers) could do much better approximations within the constraints of "English sounds" e.g. "tool" (or tooley), "bermooda" and "hereth". Another one that you didn't mention but that I find particularly annoying is the pronunciation of "chilly" for the country Chile. Particularly since a book entitled "Beastly Pronunciations" labels as "pretentious" pronouncing it as is done is Spanish (and as can be closely approximated without departing from the usual English language phonemes).
Oddly enough, the Japanese, who seem to delight in distorting English pronunciations, are better, on the whole, than English speakers with such things in borrowings from other European languages as in "platon" for Plato, "roma" for Rome, etc.
samdie said:
It pains me to admit this but, yes, the initial vowel sound like the "a" in car. As I'm sure you're aware, English speakers have a long history (probably dating back to the first loanword) of brutalizing the pronunciation of foreign words.
I'm not sure whether brutalize would be the right word. Most languages tend to modify foreign words to adapt them to their own phonetics, and specially when these words have sounds they can't easily pronounce, but English seems to "enjoy" radically changing the sounds in any case, sometimes modifying the sound of the word, not to make it sound like the original, but according to how it is written (and later change the spelling, of course), or modifying it, sometimes beyond recognition. One of endless examples is Thule, which in Swedish, Greek, Spanish, and most European languages I've checked, sounds like "Tule/tulé" (using "Spanish" phonetics), with an initial T, and similar sound, but in English sounds like "ziuli" ("Spanish" phonetics). Another two funny ones are Bermuda island, and Sherry.
lazarus1907 said:
samdie said:
I was about to add (another) post script touching on just that. Adding insult to injury, the dictionary suggests for the pronunciation what would sound to you like "ala" (making allowances for the difference in English vowels). It does, however (as a sop), add an indication of the Spanish pronunciation which would be more readily recognized by you (again, within the limitations of their "phonetic" transcriptions).
Does your dictionary really suggest that we Spanish natives pronounce "olla" as "ala" in English?
Not exactly. That's what they're offering as the "usual" pronunciation by American speakers for whom, though it pains me to admit this, the initial vowel sound is like the "a" in car. As I'm sure you're aware, English speakers have a long history (probably dating back to the first loanword) of brutalizing the pronunciation of foreign words.
They do much better when trying to suggest the real (i.e. Spanish) pronunciation (but I still prefer the OED's [more sophisticated] transcriptions).
samdie said:
I was about to add (another) post script touching on just that. Adding insult to injury, the dictionary suggests for the pronunciation what would sound to you like "ala" (making allowances for the difference in English vowels). It does, however (as a sop), add an indication of the Spanish pronunciation which would be more readily recognized by you (again, within the limitations of their "phonetic" transcriptions).
Does your dictionary really suggest that we Spanish natives pronounce "olla" as "ala" in English'
lazarus1907 said:
Another borrowing? I am going to tell my children not to bother learning English, because eventually this language is going to borrow the entire Spanish language, and we'll be perfectly understood just by changing the pronunciation, hehe. How many people are likely to know this word anyway? I don't think it is known here in England. Do you read it like "ola"?
I was about to add (another) post script touching on just that. Adding insult to injury, the dictionary suggests for the pronunciation what would sound to you like "ala" (making allowances for the difference in English vowels). It does, however (as a sop), add an indication of the Spanish pronunciation which would be more readily recognized by you (again, within the limitations of their "phonetic" transcriptions).
As for its distribution, I have no idea. I'm reasonably certain that I've seen it on restaurant menus but, then, New Yorkers are terribly sophisticated. (and, yes, I am aware of the etymology of "terrible").
Yet another update: "olla" also makes it into the OED (with what looks to me like a better phonetic transcription).
I always associated it with Spanish, but it's in my English dictionary.
spandict has both pronunciations Eng & Sp
This especially sounds good (olla podrida), not sure I would have the courage to order that. Next to the entry it says "old Spanish"
Another borrowing? I am going to tell my children not to bother learning English, because eventually this language is going to borrow the entire Spanish language, and we'll be perfectly understood just by changing the pronunciation, hehe. How many people are likely to know this word anyway? I don't think it is known here in England. Do you read it like "ola"'
lazarus1907 said:
I've checked a couple of sentences, and I've noticed this:
:
An olla of rather more beef than mutton,...
An "olla"? Is this an English word? Why didn't they write "pot" or something?
It's been borrowed in English. The primary meaning is just "pot" but the secondary meaning (which is what the translator was aiming for here) is "stew". He could have just written "stew" but, perhaps, as with "ragout" and "bouillabaisse", et al. he thought the loanword more "culinary".
P.S. Of course, since English already has "pot" and "stew" we should all excoriate this unnecessary borrowing of a foreign word. jeje
I've checked a couple of sentences, and I've noticed this:
:
An olla of rather more beef than mutton,...
An "olla"? Is this an English word? Why didn't they write "pot" or something'
