Just based on how often I notice someone mispronounce a word without realizing it (or have done so myself and realized it later). Statistically I’m probably still doing it with some word.
Just based on how often I notice someone mispronounce a word without realizing it (or have done so myself and realized it later). Statistically I’m probably still doing it with some word.
I mean, this word does have an English pronunciation that is distinct from the Italian pronunciation, which follows English phonology.
Of course, I just found it interesting there’s no equivalent sound
Re-reading I can see you weren’t actually claiming English speakers needed to use the Italian pronunciation. Some people do claim that so I just kind of continued my lifelong argument with those people :)
I agree that basic sounds from one language that don’t exist in another language are interesting.
I understand your point and admit my comment could definitely be interpreted that way.
I could be a dick about it and demand people learn to pronounce it the way us Italians do, but then I’d also have to start pronouncing every English loan word perfectly and with a correct English accent while speaking Italian, and you can do that without sounding like a pretentious asshole, so I won’t.
It’s funny that we call these words “loanwords” that we “borrow”. That implies they don’t belong to our language and that we don’t have the right to modify them however we want; it even implies that eventually we’ll return them to their language of origin. It would be much more accurate to say these words have been acquired, incorporated, or assimilated. That’s what languages actually do with words they get from other languages.
Personally, I enjoy the organic nature of the exchange of words between languages. Different languages and cultures treat foreign words differently. Some try to stick as close to the original pronunciation as possible, and some happily alter the word. This can even be handled differently by the same language and culture at a different period of time. For example, in English we have the words “gender” and “genre”, both borrowed from the same French word at different times. The older one is pronounced in an English-sounding way and the newer one is pronounced as close to the French way as possible. I find this kind of stuff very amusing.
But isn’t that exactly why it’s called loan words? In Swedish we’ve borrowed words like radio and nylon and we initially pronounced them as in English. But eventually we started to pronounce them as the spelling would dictate in Swedish (the English pronunciations would’ve been spelled rejdio and najlon). For toilet it’s the opposite. We borrowed toilette from French, but eventually altered the spelling to match the pronunciation: toalett.
I’ll grant you that once we have adapted and incorporated the words, we are no longer borrowing them. Maybe we should stop calling them loanwords at that point. But while they’re still new and don’t yet fit in, I would say that borrowing sounds about right.
On another note, I can’t understand why a people wouldn’t want to make every word work in their language. You completely lose the flow of speech when you have to pronounce something that doesn’t fit naturally into it, and you either come off as a pretentious douche or a stupid person.
Well, the definition of “loanword” means it isn’t just being used ad hoc because it is brand new, but rather that it has been incorporated into the language at least to some extent!
If that’s the case, I agree that it’s a bit strange.
deleted by creator