Tag Archives: pronunciation

Eyjafjallajökull

The sight of Icelandic can scare people sometimes. A word like Eyjafjallajökull might seem like a Viking war scream, something you’d hear coming at you across a wide-open rolling plain with mountains and glaciers behind, a rugged, untamed land – some of the youngest land on the planet (with more being spewed fresh from the mantle on regular intervals), but with an old language, one that has changed little in a millennium. Iceland: a land of incessant striking scenery (“stunning but nondescript,” as my wife put it after several hours – see our travelogue), a harsh land where for centuries people spent many long hours in small cold cabins, an island country where, thanks to a small population and an annual democratic gathering, there is no significant dialectal variation in the language. A land of very few trees, and not big ones either (what do you do if you get lost in an Icelandic forest? – stand up), where many of the population believe in the existence of huldufólk: hidden folk, for instance trolls, after whom a whole peninsula is named.

How do trolls hide in a place without forests? Iceland is a place where you can see for miles and miles and miles but whatever you’re looking for you probably won’t see until you’re practically on top of it. Its famous waterfalls, for instance – they don’t fall down to you from above you; rather, they fall from a river that has carved into the plain you’re on, down into a gorge even father below. And major sites of interest – historical sites and geological sites – are marked with little signs and small, mostly empty parking lots next to their two-lane roads. You’re just driving along, and suddenly, whoa!

The language likewise is plain and yet spectacular. Names for things are generally straightforward – they translate to things like Smoky Bay (that’s the capital), Island Fjord, North River, Lake Glacier (the biggest glacier in Europe – and the word for “lake” is the same as the word for “water”), and Midge Lake. But Icelandic has retained three letters that English lost long ago (edh, thorn, and ash: ð, þ, æ) and has retained an involved system of inflections too, and it has developed a tendency to devoice things (for instance word-final l and r) and often to pre-aspirate double voiceless stops (not only do you devoice the consonant, you cut the voice off even before you get to the consonant). If you see nn or mm, you’re looking at a voiceless nasal – and with the nn there’s a sort of [t] at the beginning too. These are sounds you really can’t even hear unless you’re at close quarters in a quiet place. And ll? A voiceless lateral affricate – the same as we see rendered with lh for Tibetan names (e.g., Lhasa) and tlh in Klingon. If you say “hotlips” making sure you actually touch the tongue on the t (rather than making a glottal stop of it) you’ll sort of get it. To all this relative exoticism add the tendency to make compounds and you get some striking words.

For instance, take “island”, “mountain”, and “glacier”: ey (said “eh” – y is just like English y), fjall (said “fyatlh” – one syllable, ending with that ll voiceless lateral affricate, not like the end of Seattle, which keeps the voicing), and jökull (the ö is like German ö and the u is similar but a little lower and farther back, like in French coeur). Since Icelandic puts modifying nouns in the genitive case, you add genitive suffixes to the first two nouns. Then you glue all three together, and whoa! Eyjafjallajökull, “ehya-fyatlha–yökuhtlh”! It’s like you’re driving along a wide-open space and suddenly a Viking horde comes at you from a hidden ravine, and they’re all screaming and whispering at you. Or you’re standing on a glacier and suddenly a volcano erupts from under it. The word looks sort of like a fall, a flight, a horde itself, or the onrush of smoke and ash, perhaps. But all those ascenders and dots and descenders are really your hair standing on end at the very sight of it.

And at the very prospect of saying it, if you’re like a lot of people. And, well, there’s the thing: just as out of nowhere there is all this ash filling the air that is keeping people from flying, likewise out of nowhere is this word, the name for the glacier on the mountain and for the volcano under it that’s burping up the ash. The ll sounds begin to sound maybe like burps of steam and pumice, in fact. And good luck finding another European language that can even deal with this word phonologically. Icelandic has retained and added sounds not found in even the other Scandinavian languages. English certainly just has to do its best with what it can. This word can’t become an English word, after all, unless and until it’s adopted English phonotactics. And it remains to be seen how people will agree on pronouncing it, if they in fact ever will.

People are surely wishing for something nice and simple like Krakatoa right about now. Even Popocatépetl is looking good… though it (in the original) ends with exactly the same sound as does Eyjafjallajökull: not with a bang but a crackling hiss.

Peking, Beijing, whazzup?

Pity the capital city of China. No matter what, its name gets mispronounced. It used to be written Peking, but that led to millions of people saying it like an act of voyeurism. Now it’s written Beijing, and anglophones all over the world can’t believe that a j could represent anything like how we say it in English, so in the spirit of foreignness they blubber the b and say the j as though it were French.

In fact, the phonemes involved in the name of China’s capital are such that Peking (the Yale transliteration), Pei-ching (Wade-Giles style, but never commonly used) and Beijing (Pinyin style) are all arguably viable, but all misleading in one way or another for the simple reason that the sounds used are not all sounds we make in English. Continue reading

schism

This word manifests a schism between spelling and pronunciation – and between two ways of pronouncing it. One might say there is a (somewhat repaired) historical schism in its form, too, but really it’s a manifestation of language change over centuries… followed by atavistic orthographic reversion, which in turn has given rise to a recrudescent pronunciation. Even more amusing, the version preferred by prescriptivists is a medial, not original, form – and it goes against the spelling, by contrast with such reverted spelling pronunciations as for the suffix ing, which was [In] for a long time until brought back to match the spelling by the yardstick-wielders.

But perhaps the thing to establish first is that this word does not sound like schist with an m swapped for the i, even though both words come from the same source: Greek schizein, verb, “split” (you will recognize it in schizophrenia, “split head” by origin). Instead, this word – which has been used in English since the 14th century, in reference first to ecclesiastical splits and then, starting a century later, to splits in general – passed into English already mutated as cisme or scisme, with [s] at the beginning. Then, with interest in and awareness of the classics growing, in the 16th century it got changed to schism to match the Greek (and intermediary Latin) source. And only over time, and with considerable resistance, and only by some speakers, has the onset come to be said [sk].

So let us look at the two pronunciations severally. The first presents us with a silent ch, which I defy you to find in another English word. It hisses and sizzles, and snips like scissors – which word, by the way, is unrelated. The vowel can almost be subsumed into the fricative flow: see how slightly you can separate your tongue from your alveolar ridge, so that rather than cleaving, it cleaves. Then decide whether to ply it slightly again before the [m] or dive straight in without even a hint of a schwa. One syllable or two? Or is this a word that may be used in arguments against syllables as an essential unit, or at least in favour of fractional syllables? In any event, though ism is a common suffix, few unsuffixed words (I was going to say “one-syllable,” but let’s not take that issue as decided) end with it: prism is perhaps the most common, and jism the least polite.

But if you wish to say the ch, you start the word with [sk], and thus enforce a schism between the fricatives. Certainly [sk] is common enough, and schism is not the only word that at first in English had a c (or s) pronounced [s] that then was respelled sch on historical grounds and is now sometimes pronounced with [sk]: schedule is the other one I can think of, and it has a similar history. But let me not get off schedule; I’m running long as it is. The skipping jaunt or sketchy scratch of [sk] lends this pronunciation a distinctly different air from the softer [s] version, a bit of a kick.

On paper, of course, it’s all one word, glaring at you and daring you to decide which way it will be pronounced, a sort of Schroedinger’s cat that could be either version or neither version until you ask which. And on the page it sometimes hangs out near religious and church, but its closest friend is between.