When American celebrities can't pronounce their own name properly

[Fire Haired14]

Why can't people set aside 5 minutes to learn to pronounce only their own surname? That is unbelievable. The time you spent replying to my posts you would have had time to remember spelling conventions in at least 5 languages!

It certainly takes a lot longer than 5 minutes.

It does happen, for example with North African immigrants in Europe, who still use Arabic given names after 3 generations in Europe. In contrast, people like people translate their given name even when studying for a few months in another European country, to 'go native' as much as possible.

How have Middle Easterners who have lived in Europe for generations integrated?

Read what I wrote above.: The ultimate rule for Americans with foreign names should be: if you can't pronounce it, change it to an English name. It's better than to sound like a fool who can't pronounce his/her own name properly.

The only people we sound like fools to are native speakers who makeup 0.0000001% of the population in America.

Did you know that in Japan any foreigners who applies to Japanese citizenship is required by law to choose a Japanese given name and surname? That's because Japanese language has very few vowels and consonants and it makes it very difficult for Japanese people to pronounce foreign names. As they don't like to butcher foreign pronunciation, as many sounds cannot be accurately rendered using Japanese script (Katakana in this case), they decided it would be better for everyone if naturalised citizens adopted Japanese names. I have permanent resident status in Japan and once considered naturalisation, but Japan does not allow dual citizenship and I simply could not give up my EU citizenship.

That's interesting but it shouldn't be done in America. Yeah, sure maybe we should learn to say some names. We can do that name by name. An example of that is Mike Krzyzewski. We don't pronounce his name with English spelling rules because his family taught people how to pronounce it. But we don't need to take "take 5 minutes" to learn another language's spelling and pronouncation in order to know how to pronounce any Polish name other than Krzyzewski.

And no people don't totally butch those celebrities' names. We pronounce them slightly incorrectly. It's not a big deal.

 

[Sennevini]

It is somehow strange, because I would think you'd learn your surname's pronunciation from your father. This is mainly a question of an interpretation of a foreign name within the pronunciation rules of one's native orthography. This is going to happen anyway.
What I always find annoying is the pronunciation of Chinese names by westerners (e.g. pronouncing X as ks, while in China, this is a spelling for a certain type of sh), same fir "Beijing". Chinese doesn't have voiced stops; the spelling "b" denotes a pronunciation "p" (the spelling "p" denotes an aspirated "p" like in English).

 

[Maciamo]

It certainly takes a lot longer than 5 minutes.

For one name (hence one language), not it doesn't. In the 5 minutes I included the time it take to type 'X language spelling' in Google, the time to read the relevant section. If I give you a summary of the letters that are read differently in English and the language in question, it takes much less than 5 minutes. Maybe 30 seconds to read and memorise it. If you have a poor memory and need to repeat 3 or 4 times before it is set forever in your memory, then one minute instead of 30 secs. Anyway 5 minutes was very generous.

How have Middle Easterners who have lived in Europe for generations integrated?

Apart from Turks (mostly in Germany) there aren't many. I am not sure what is the percentage of Turks who were given local given names, if that's what you ask.

The only people we sound like fools to are native speakers who makeup 0.0000001% of the population in America.

Why? Even Native Americans speak English now and many adopted English names.

And no people don't totally butch those celebrities' names. We pronounce them slightly incorrectly. It's not a big deal.

I live in a country with three official languages, and in a city where all street, park or other place names are translated in French and Dutch, and sometimes also in English. I am or was fluent in 6 languages and can read or understand fairly well in several more languages (if we include Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Corsican, etc. which are easy enough to read for someone who already knows French, Italian and Spanish). So I know quite a bit about language learning and pronunciations, and when I am telling you that Americans often butcher foreign names, I mean it. When American people ask me for directions trying to pronounce place names in French or Dutch here, it's often bad enough to require some imagination to guess what they mean, and sometimes there is no way to guess at all. Many don't take the trouble at all to check the spelling rules before going to a country (even if they are going to work there for years).

As I mentioned before, last year I learned over 1000 words of Danish and practice my Danish pronunciation (one of the most difficult due to the high number of phonemes) just to prepare myself for a weekend in Copenhagen. All this while knowing that most Danish people can speak English (although often not very well). I may be a special case. Perhaps your average European will only learn basic greetings, number and directions before visiting another country. But I wanted to be able to read the signs, menus, listen a bit to the news on TV in Danish, and so on. That's part of the travel experience if you want to get the most out of it. Anyway I can't understand why anyone would live or work in a country and not try to learn the local language. When I hear that some Americans don't even care about knowing how to pronounce their own surname, it just baffles me as much as to know that some people still believe in creationism. It's really the same level of intellectual laziness and decrepitude. How can anybody have a mind so closed to knowledge and to the rest of the world? I might have a mild form of Asperger, but as a nation Americans seem far more autistic and self-centred than any Aspie ever will be.

 

[I1a3_Young]

Well, that's just pathetic. Most 8 years old could find these countries on a map here! And probably recognise the flags too. It's things like that that make European look down on Americans. Personally, I feel that a Westerner who can't find another Western country on a map is just a lower class, uneducated dimwit - what you Americans call rednecks, hillbillies or white trash, depending on the region. I hope you were talking about the average Joe and that it is not your case. I would assume that anybody who partakes in discussions about ancient migrations and modern haplogroup frequencies know at least their geography - American members included.



I know that, but so what? You don't need to speak a language to know a handful of spelling rules. I don't speak Chinese or Turkish, but I know how to read (romanised) Chinese and Turkish names, because that's a basic skill in today's global society. I mean people from all over the world all the time, and not being able to pronounce their name is a source of embarrassment. From a practical point of view, how do you tell a taxi driver in Shanghai or Istanbul which street or hotel you are going to if you can't say it properly? One could show it on a piece of paper or on your phone, but it looks really bad, like someone who admits is has never learned to read... In academia especially, it would be extremely embarrassing to mention a historical figure, a fellow researcher, or a place name in a speech (lecture, conference, seminar, etc.) and not get the pronunciation right. Imagine a philosopher making a speech at an international symposium in Paris and mentioning an anecdote about Descartes studying at the University of Poitiers and he pronounces Descartes as "Dess-car-tess" instead of "Dè-carrt" and says "Poy-tiers" instead of "Pwa-tiay". They can say goodbye to their career. Nobody is going to take them seriously after that. It's fine if that person cannot pronounce the French guttural r (a physiological limitation), but it's not fine to pronounce the silent s, as it's a sign of poor education.




But it's so easy to change name in the US. Just fill out a form, send it and you're done. What takes time after is to change one's documents (bank account, social security, etc.).



Herbert is not a common French name. It's actually more common in England and Wales. Anyway it would be pronounced ayr-bear in French, not ay-bear. Why drop the r?




Yes, but they have names that are considered part of the English-speaking world, even if they are Celtic in origin. That doesn't count as foreign names in an English-speaking country.



Yes, but you care about genealogy and genetics, which isn't the case of most Americans...




Ok, but what does that have to do with the pronunciation of surnames?



I don't know why it's so funny. If the school curriculum added just one hour in the English language class to learn of to read foreign words and names, that would solve the problem for everyone. In one hour there is plenty of time to explain the few differences in spelling conventions between English and at least 10 major languages like French, German, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Arabic, Hindi, Chinese and Japanese. Actually Hindi and Arabic are a bit superfluous as their romanisation is based on English and presents no particular difficulty to English speakers (other than sounds that don't exist in English, but that don't need to be taught).




Again, what does that have to do with pronunciation?

My tangents were to illustrate the mentality and attitudes of Americans. The diversity here is large but I'm grouping us all together.

Our public education system is tough because you have many low IQ people who treat school like prison and drop out as soon as possible to get on welfare benefits or turn to crime. Getting students to understand basic math and biology is a far higher priority than foreign language nuances.

We don't deal with foreigners nearly as much as other nations. The people that do probably have better educations. Our more wealthy and intelligent have more resources to travel abroad and they still make us look bad.

But, even our more intelligent people suffer from a lack of "caring" about the issue you raised about name pronunciations.

I would love to observe you try to convince any American to change their surname because it's "inaccurate."

There are tons of Herberts in south Louisiana and exactly zero say ayr-bear. Other common names are LeBlanc (le blaunk), LaFitte (la feet), Landrieu (lan droo), Chauvin (sho van), Breaux (bro), Arsenault (ars in oh), Benoit (Bin wah), Bordelon (board uh lawn), Doucet (doo chet, or doo set), Gautreaux (Go troh), Guillot (Gi ot, or Gi oh), Theriot (Terry oh). Yes I realize some of these are incorrect. Good luck convincing any of them to change it.

I do care and I've always had an above average interest in history and geography. This site is amazing and I'm trying to absorb it all like a sponge. I had a very weak understanding of ancient European cultures. Before visiting here I had a vague recollection of words like "Hallstat" and "Urnfield." I wish my family and friends would match me in interest. I asked a buddy where his family came from and he shrugged and said probably England. In five minutes I used Ancestry.com to trace his father line to Scotland. He thought it was cool but I doubt he would have ever taken the initiative and done it himself.

I'll sign up for your personal crusade to correct names and let you know how it works out.

 

[Angela]

My tangents were to illustrate the mentality and attitudes of Americans. The diversity here is large but I'm grouping us all together.

Our public education system is tough because you have many low IQ people who treat school like prison and drop out as soon as possible to get on welfare benefits or turn to crime. Getting students to understand basic math and biology is a far higher priority than foreign language nuances.

We don't deal with foreigners nearly as much as other nations. The people that do probably have better educations. Our more wealthy and intelligent have more resources to travel abroad and they still make us look bad.

But, even our more intelligent people suffer from a lack of "caring" about the issue you raised about name pronunciations.

I would love to observe you try to convince any American to change their surname because it's "inaccurate."

There are tons of Herberts in south Louisiana and exactly zero say ayr-bear. Other common names are LeBlanc (le blaunk), LaFitte (la feet), Landrieu (lan droo), Chauvin (sho van), Breaux (bro), Arsenault (ars in oh), Benoit (Bin wah), Bordelon (board uh lawn), Doucet (doo chet, or doo set), Gautreaux (Go troh), Guillot (Gi ot, or Gi oh), Theriot (Terry oh). Yes I realize some of these are incorrect. Good luck convincing any of them to change it.

I do care and I've always had an above average interest in history and geography. This site is amazing and I'm trying to absorb it all like a sponge. I had a very weak understanding of ancient European cultures. Before visiting here I had a vague recollection of words like "Hallstat" and "Urnfield." I wish my family and friends would match me in interest. I asked a buddy where his family came from and he shrugged and said probably England. In five minutes I used Ancestry.com to trace his father line to Scotland. He thought it was cool but I doubt he would have ever taken the initiative and done it himself.

I'll sign up for your personal crusade to correct names and let you know how it works out.

You can't look like a fool to people because you don't pronounce a name the way it was pronounced originally when all of the 300 million compatriots to whom you're speaking pronounce it the same way you do. The only people who would know it's wrong and might think it's foolish are Europeans of the specific country from which the name originates. Most Americans have never been to Europe, and whether or not they have, the vast majority couldn't care less what Europeans think about how Americans pronounce names. I know it sounds arrogant, but that's the reality. The country is so large and was isolated for so long, and has been so distrustful of Europe and European entanglements, that this is the attitude that has developed.

In fact, if you go around changing the pronunciation "back" to the original form, people are going to think you're weird, pretentious, and perhaps a bit un-American. Look at the ribbing that Stephen Colbert (Kol bayre, I think) gets for the way he pronounces his name. In a way, people are right: even his Irish ancestors from the 17-1800s didn't give it that "French" pronunciation.

America has been a very welcoming country to immigrants, but the trade-off is that you have to let go of a lot of your heritage and become "American". Almost everybody except the late arriving Hispanics has been happy to do it. Italian-Americans, for example, third, fourth, and fifth generation almost all of them, let go of the Italian language (usually only dialect anyway) by the second or third generation because the children of the immigrants wanted so desperately to become "American". All that's left, really, is the food, and with enough intermarriage even that goes.

This American pronunciation of words extends to things other than surnames as well, ie. food products. Where I live there are a lot of Italian Americans and so there are lots of Italian delis and groceries. Italian food is also very popular, so the people shopping in the Italian food markets, and working in the Italian food markets too, come from many different backgrounds. While I'm waiting to be served, I almost never hear the products named correctly: parmigiano becomes "parmesan", capocollo becomes "capicol" or "cappy", prosciutto is pronounced something like "proziute", mozzarella can become "mazz", but even when not shortened is not pronounced correctly. This is Italian-Americans as well as "others". It bothers me, but trust me...I'm the only one bothered. In fact, if I ask for capocollo piccante I usually get odd looks and have to say "hot cappy" or the servers don't know what to get.

It's just the way it is, and nothing is going to change it.

 

[tahir0010]

That's not the same thing. You are talking about regional variants in pronunciation within Turkey. But as long as they know the standard Turkish pronunciation, that should be acceptable. I mean even Turks in Turkey don't know all the regional pronunciations, so why except those born in Germany to know them?

Yes of course, but even when it comes to e as I stated some people who do not speak Turkish do not pronounce it correctly with or without regional pronunciations same with people with ı in there name its pronounced more like kanı would be like ka-nuh. People who do not speak Turkish from Turkish background have trouble with this also if there name has ay, ıy, ey, üy, and etc. The ğ as I stated is different, but I have met Turkish who just pronounce it like g they say for example Doğan like doe, gahn. Even when they are speaking with Turkish people usually they will speak German, and as I stated be 4-6th generation turks who do not speak the language.

 

[Maciamo]

Yes of course, but even when it comes to e as I stated some people who do not speak Turkish do not pronounce it correctly with or without regional pronunciations same with people with ı in there name its pronounced more like kanı would be like ka-nuh. People who do not speak Turkish from Turkish background have trouble with this also if there name has ay, ıy, ey, üy, and etc. The ğ as I stated is different, but I have met Turkish who just pronounce it like g they say for example Doğan like doe, gahn. Even when they are speaking with Turkish people usually they will speak German, and as I stated be 4-6th generation turks who do not speak the language.

That's true. Now that you mention it, German is indeed special among European languages in not having a short /e/ sound (as in red or bed in English, or like a French or Italian è).

I forgot to mention the Turkish undotted i (ı). It's a close back unrounded vowel, which is somewhere in between a German u (or English oo as in hook) and the e in bitte (or the a in about).

 

[davef]

You can't look like a fool to people because you don't pronounce a name the way it was pronounced originally when all of the 300 million compatriots to whom you're speaking pronounce it the same way you do. The only people who would know it's wrong and might think it's foolish are Europeans of the specific country from which the name originates. Most Americans have never been to Europe, and whether or not they have, the vast majority couldn't care less what Europeans think about how Americans pronounce names. I know it sounds arrogant, but that's the reality. The country is so large and was isolated for so long, and has been so distrustful of Europe and European entanglements, that this is the attitude that has developed.

In fact, if you go around changing the pronunciation "back" to the original form, people are going to think you're weird, pretentious, and perhaps a bit un-American. Look at the ribbing that Stephen Colbert (Kol bayre, I think) gets for the way he pronounces his name. In a way, people are right: even his Irish ancestors from the 17-1800s didn't give it that "French" pronunciation.

America has been a very welcoming country to immigrants, but the trade-off is that you have to let go of a lot of your heritage and become "American". Almost everybody except the late arriving Hispanics has been happy to do it. Italian-Americans, for example, third, fourth, and fifth generation almost all of them, let go of the Italian language (usually only dialect anyway) by the second or third generation because the children of the immigrants wanted so desperately to become "American". All that's left, really, is the food, and with enough intermarriage even that goes.

This American pronunciation of words extends to things other than surnames as well, ie. food products. Where I live there are a lot of Italian Americans and so there are lots of Italian delis and groceries. Italian food is also very popular, so the people shopping in the Italian food markets, and working in the Italian food markets too, come from many different backgrounds. While I'm waiting to be served, I almost never hear the products named correctly: parmigiano becomes "parmesan", capocollo becomes "capicol" or "cappy", prosciutto is pronounced something like "proziute", mozzarella can become "mazz", but even when not shortened is not pronounced correctly. This is Italian-Americans as well as "others". It bothers me, but trust me...I'm the only one bothered. In fact, if I ask for capocollo piccante I usually get odd looks and have to say "hot cappy" or the servers don't know what to get.

It's just the way it is, and nothing is going to change it.

I've never in my life heard anyone say "mazz" instead of "mozzarella". Everyone who lives around me says "mozzarella" in full....but then again, most people who live around me are are at least 1/4 italian.

 

[Maciamo]

You can't look like a fool to people because you don't pronounce a name the way it was pronounced originally when all of the 300 million compatriots to whom you're speaking pronounce it the same way you do. The only people who would know it's wrong and might think it's foolish are Europeans of the specific country from which the name originates.

But there is no consensus among Americans about how most foreign surnames should be pronounced. That's the whole point of the BBC article that made me start the thread. Many Americans pronounce the names of some celebrities in a very different way the the celebrities in question and their family pronounce it, and neither pronunciation is correct in the original language. Then they don't just look like fools in the eyes of Europeans of the specific country from which the name originated. Contrarily to Americans, Europeans always learn foreign languages at school, and in the younger generations many speak several languages fluently. Educated people from smaller countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries or Switzerland typically speak between 3 and 5 languages fluently. In Brussels it's hard to get even a basic, low-pay job (waiter, railway staff, policeman, shop assistant) if you aren't fluent at least in French, Dutch and English. The other day I had to call the police because someone was blocking my car, and while I was chit-chatting with the police officer I was surprised to find out that he could speak some Japanese too, just because he liked the country and decided to learn the language for fun. Of course he was also fluent in French, Dutch and English, and perhaps knew some Arabic as well, which is always useful in the law enforcement in Brussels.

Americans claim that they don't need to learn other languages because everybody speaks English nowadays. That's not the point of learning languages. You learn a language to understand another country's culture and mindset, and to discover new ways of thinking you might not have suspected existed before learning that language (that's especially true for Japanese, in my experience). In fact, most of the British expats I know in Brussels (quite a few of them) can speak decent French, or at least make the effort to learn it by respect for the locals. There are also lots of American expats in Brussels, but I am still to meet one who could speak French. I just know one who is fluent in Spanish.

Most Americans have never been to Europe, and whether or not they have, the vast majority couldn't care less what Europeans think about how Americans pronounce names. I know it sounds arrogant, but that's the reality. The country is so large and was isolated for so long, and has been so distrustful of Europe and European entanglements, that this is the attitude that has developed.

What do you mean by 'isolated for so long'? It's never been sakoku Japan. There has always been a steady flow of immigrants (and more recently expats) to the US, so that Americans, at least in big cities, are constantly in contact with people from other countries. It's more obvious in places like New York or San Francisco than in Wichita, Kansas, but still.

This American pronunciation of words extends to things other than surnames as well, ie. food products. Where I live there are a lot of Italian Americans and so there are lots of Italian delis and groceries. Italian food is also very popular, so the people shopping in the Italian food markets, and working in the Italian food markets too, come from many different backgrounds. While I'm waiting to be served, I almost never hear the products named correctly: parmigiano becomes "parmesan", capocollo becomes "capicol" or "cappy", prosciutto is pronounced something like "proziute", mozzarella can become "mazz", but even when not shortened is not pronounced correctly. This is Italian-Americans as well as "others". It bothers me, but trust me...I'm the only one bothered. In fact, if I ask for capocollo piccante I usually get odd looks and have to say "hot cappy" or the servers don't know what to get.

It's just the way it is, and nothing is going to change it.

That's one more reason why I wouldn't want to live in the US. It would be torture on a daily basis for me. I already got a foretaste by living half a year in Australia and visiting a few times the US. Australians are almost as closed to the rest of the world as Americans, but many younger Australians have at least the British adventurous spirit that takes them travelling around the world as backpackers - something that Americans very rarely do. It's common for Brits and other northern Europeans (esp. the Dutch and Scandinavians) to take a year off to travel around the world to broaden their horizons. I have done it too. When we come back home, there is a huge gap in maturity, open-mindedness and way to see the world between those that took a gap year to travel and those who didn't. When I was travelling around India, Southeast Asia and Australia, I met hundreds of Brits, hundreds of Dutch and many more Scandinavians, Germans, Swiss, French, etc. Yet I only met only two Americans in Australia and a handful in India and Thailand. I think that says it all. Americans seem to be afraid to travel even to other English-speaking countries.

 

[davef]

I couldn't point to Europe on a map until high school.

 

[Angela]

Maciamo;513558]But there is no consensus among Americans about how most foreign surnames should be pronounced. That's the whole point of the BBC article that made me start the thread. Many Americans pronounce the names of some celebrities in a very different way the the celebrities in question and their family pronounce it, and neither pronunciation is correct in the original language. Then they don't just look like fools in the eyes of Europeans of the specific country from which the name originated.

Maciamo, these things just don't matter to Americans. However you choose to pronounce your surname is fine with everybody else, although you might get teased if you go with what would be considered a "pretentious" choice. This laissez-faire attitude also extends to first names. People have taken not only to giving their children strange first names like Moon, but they also make up names, like Shayla or any other combination of pleasing sounds. I very much like the fact that certain given names have a certain history and connect you to people in the past, so I personally can't stand it, but there it is. It's the present that matters to Americans, the present and the future, not the past. Student of history that I am, I think one has to understand the past before moving forward, but there's something to be said for not being in thrall to it, to not being bound by what your parents did, by the expectations of what went before. There are always pluses and minuses to every cultural trait. This casualness extends to everything really. Now everyone is dressing like Americans to some extent, but when we first arrived my parents were shocked at the, to them, sloppy way that even highly educated Americans dressed. Ditto for the way such people were addressed and treated. It was indeed a new world.

I think Walt Whitman is perhaps the most quintessentially "American" writer, and I think this particular poem sort of explains the American attitude:

Song of Myself:
"I celebrate myself, and sing myself, And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.
I loafe and invite my soul,
I lean and loafe at my ease observing a spear of summer grass.
My tongue, every atom of my blood, form'd from this soil, this air,
Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their parents the same,
I, now thirty-seven years old in perfect health begin,
Hoping to cease not till death.
Creeds and schools in abeyance,
Retiring back a while sufficed at what they are, but never forgotten,
I harbor for good or bad, I permit to speak at every hazard,
Nature without check with original energy. ("Song of Myself," 1892 edition,"

Individualism run amok perhaps.

Contrarily to Americans, Europeans always learn foreign languages at school, and in the younger generations many speak several languages fluently. Educated people from smaller countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries or Switzerland typically speak between 3 and 5 languages fluently. In Brussels it's hard to get even a basic, low-pay job (waiter, railway staff, policeman, shop assistant) if you aren't fluent at least in French, Dutch and English. The other day I had to call the police because someone was blocking my car, and while I was chit-chatting with the police officer I was surprised to find out that he could speak some Japanese too, just because he liked the country and decided to learn the language for fun. Of course he was also fluent in French, Dutch and English, and perhaps knew some Arabic as well, which is always useful in the law enforcement in Brussels.

Americans claim that they don't need to learn other languages because everybody speaks English nowadays. That's not the point of learning languages. You learn a language to understand another country's culture and mindset, and to discover new ways of thinking you might not have suspected existed before learning that language (that's especially true for Japanese, in my experience). In fact, most of the British expats I know in Brussels (quite a few of them) can speak decent French, or at least make the effort to learn it by respect for the locals. There are also lots of American expats in Brussels, but I am still to meet one who could speak French. I just know one who is fluent in Spanish.

That's all very true, but I think one has to keep in mind that you can go 3,000 miles east to west here and still be in the same country. There was no need to learn another language, unlike in Europe where in some countries you can't go for more than a couple of hundred miles before encountering people who speak
another language. So in some sense Europeans make a virtue of necessity.

What do you mean by 'isolated for so long'? It's never been sakoku Japan. There has always been a steady flow of immigrants (and more recently expats) to the US, so that Americans, at least in big cities, are constantly in contact with people from other countries. It's more obvious in places like New York or San Francisco than in Wichita, Kansas, but still.

Yes, America got floods of new immigrants, but no one learned their languages or customs. People were expected to learn English, and quickly, if they wanted to get a job and not starve to death. The work was here, acceptance to some degree even for the first generation was here, but only if you shed your old identity to some degree, or at least kept it private, only in your own home or neighborhood.

The reverse was not true. Before the advent of air travel, a tiny minority of Americans, only those from the upper classes, ever went to Europe. This was true even for the immigrants themselves. Italians had the highest rate of return of any immigrant group, but even they, if they returned to Europe, returned there because they couldn't adjust, and they stayed there.

So, for 350 years, this was it. Plus, it's a psychological separation. There's a whole branch of American studies dedicated to this "American myth" of America as a new Eden which would spawn a new people, a people not bound by the norms of Europe. All countries have national myths; this is America's. It was to be a "Shining City on a Hill" too. I suppose it could all be wrapped up in the term "American Exceptionalism". In order to remain "exceptional", America had to remain as free as possible of European "corruption", corruption largely in the sense of tyranny, and European entanglements which would lead to it. I think a lot of Europeans underestimate the strong strain of isolationism which exists in America. It had to be pushed and prodded into World War I and II, and only the emergence of what America believed to be a threat to its way of life in the form of Communism led to a change. Now, I think it's re-asserting itself.

This spills over into the attitude toward European languages as well. I don't think Europeans know or at least give sufficient importance to this distrust of Europe which is ingrained in American attitudes.

America as the "new Eden":
https://prezi.com/uxg4przcjpiu/america-as-a-new-eden-and-the-american-dream/

The City Upon The Hill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill

American exceptionalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

One of the best analyses of America was written by a Frenchman: Alexis de Toqueville
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America

That's one more reason why I wouldn't want to live in the US. It would be torture on a daily basis for me. I already got a foretaste by living half a year in Australia and visiting a few times the US. Australians are almost as closed to the rest of the world as Americans, but many younger Australians have at least the British adventurous spirit that takes them travelling around the world as backpackers - something that Americans very rarely do. It's common for Brits and other northern Europeans (esp. the Dutch and Scandinavians) to take a year off to travel around the world to broaden their horizons. I have done it too. When we come back home, there is a huge gap in maturity, open-mindedness and way to see the world between those that took a gap year to travel and those who didn't. When I was travelling around India, Southeast Asia and Australia, I met hundreds of Brits, hundreds of Dutch and many more Scandinavians, Germans, Swiss, French, etc. Yet I only met only two Americans in Australia and a handful in India and Thailand. I think that says it all. Americans seem to be afraid to travel even to other English-speaking countries.

They're not afraid. A lot of them are just not interested. If they want adventure, there are deserts, mountains, ice sheets, whatever they want, right here.

Certain countries suit certain types of people. It's just the way it is. Americans who go to Australia and New Zealand love it there, while England, despite the language being the same, not so much, although that's a generalization. There are always exceptions.

To each their own.

 

[I1a3_Young]

Angela is so much more eloquent than I

As for adventurous spirits - we have plenty. There's no need to take backpacking trips elsewhere. We have some wide open spaces and rugged country. Some states have "everything" and there's no need to even cross a state line. California has great vineyards, warm beaches, cold beaches, great surfing, majestic mountains, clear lakes, giant redwood forests, and desert.

Most people I know travel to Mexico or Caribbean islands for the beach if they leave the country. Florida has some amazing beaches though, from the pan handle down to the keys. It takes over 12 hours to drive it. Visiting Miami is almost like visiting another country with culture, language, and cuisine. Or you could head to Hawaii without the need of a passport or currency change. You can learn the native culture and experience their cuisine and language. It's got mountains, volcanoes, some of the best beaches in the world, great snorkeling, hiking, fishing, etc. You can see bird species unique to the world and see flowing lava at the same time. I could spend two weeks on Hawai'i (the big island) and not come close to doing all the activities that I'd like to do. The BWCA (Boundary Waters Canoe Area) on the Minnesota/Canada border is a great adventure. Spend a week or even a month in the remote lakes, lost to the world with the eagles, moose, and fish. Drive 20+ hours and hit the Louisiana swamps and experience the cajun culture. Eat some gumbo, et touffe, boudain, and party with some of the most fun-loving people in the world. The vast expanse of swamps/marshes in Louisiana are like being in another part of the world.

New York, Seattle, Los Angeles - totally different experiences and all of them would make fun of my southern accent.

Visiting Alaska is higher on my list than most places in the world. I want to see brown bears and fly fish for salmon during the run.

If not headed to beaches, I'd say most Americans traveling for leisure would choose standard Europe trips to the most popular west Euro nations like the UK, Germany, Italy, France, and Spain.

Most people I know who went to Asia did so for business purposes in China or Japan, unless they are of Asian heritage. Almost nobody I know has been to India - there's not much appeal here but it may be different for Brits as it used to be part of their empire.

I can count seven people who have gone on African safari.

You know, one factor may be that most Americans only get two weeks of vacation per year. We have less time to take large trips. Combine less time with adequate activities here - and here we are. No foreign language or passport required.

I'm looking at only a few big trips remaining in my life. Alaska and Brazil will be two. Italy will be another, although I've been there. The last will be hard. Right now I'm thinking a two week trip around the British isles. I'd love to go to Greece, Germany, Norway, Iceland, Spain, France again, and Switzerland. I'd love to see Poland, Russia, and Japan but I won't get the chance. Same for Australia.

Then again, I could stay in the US and use the cost savings to get a full Y sequence

 

[Rethel]

I said that for Americans, not Poles. Poles and other European have a very different attitude to ancestry and heritage. The logic is that if some Americans don't care at all about where their ancestors came from, can't even name their great-grand-parents

So they should be pressed to know that by US national culture.

are ethnically mixed from all over Europe,

Family is not a race so cannot be mixed. So as such they can remember
where they are coming from (so, if do not know how to pronouce, they
would know where to find the information how to do this or how should
be written correctly in original form if is used corupt orthographic version).
It is really not to hard to know: "I am from Germany". Learning at home
how to correctly pronouce one word is also not so hard, especially, that
should learn the whole language. One word is nothing, so if someone
cannot, then should be ashamed.

BUT not changing it - it is much greater shame.

and just care about making life easy in the present, then why shouldn't they adopt English surnames?

Because they allready have their own. Their family is not their own,
but also their great-grands and greeeaaat-sons. Changing the name
is broking the minimum historical information which can be passed to
a person. Just becasue a majority of people are idiots, it doesn;t mean,
that their idiocy must be followed by all or made easier for them.

After all, that's what African Americans did when they were freed from slavery. They didn't come up with native African names because they felt culturally uprooted and knew they had better adopt similar names to their former masters.

Totaly sensless argument.

I don;t think, that enslaved illiterate negors from XIXth century
should be an apropriate example for modern educated mostly
not black american society. Quite opposite.

Btw, majority of negros had no surnames at all, secondly, they did
not speak in any african language at 1865, and if they by some
miracle had some inheritable name, ofently, they probably didnt
know it at 1865.

By the names of owners they were called during slavery.

Of course they could do better by creation new names, distinguishing them,
but what you can do - it was their choice. Majority of modern negros probably
dont even know their proper families, so in their case it is meaningless. They
should create names from the begining anyway, becasue there is no way to
find their roots, often even in early XXth century.

 

[Angela]

Angela is so much more eloquent than I

As for adventurous spirits - we have plenty. There's no need to take backpacking trips elsewhere. We have some wide open spaces and rugged country. Some states have "everything" and there's no need to even cross a state line. California has great vineyards, warm beaches, cold beaches, great surfing, majestic mountains, clear lakes, giant redwood forests, and desert.

Most people I know travel to Mexico or Caribbean islands for the beach if they leave the country. Florida has some amazing beaches though, from the pan handle down to the keys. It takes over 12 hours to drive it. Visiting Miami is almost like visiting another country with culture, language, and cuisine. Or you could head to Hawaii without the need of a passport or currency change. You can learn the native culture and experience their cuisine and language. It's got mountains, volcanoes, some of the best beaches in the world, great snorkeling, hiking, fishing, etc. You can see bird species unique to the world and see flowing lava at the same time. I could spend two weeks on Hawai'i (the big island) and not come close to doing all the activities that I'd like to do. The BWCA (Boundary Waters Canoe Area) on the Minnesota/Canada border is a great adventure. Spend a week or even a month in the remote lakes, lost to the world with the eagles, moose, and fish. Drive 20+ hours and hit the Louisiana swamps and experience the cajun culture. Eat some gumbo, et touffe, boudain, and party with some of the most fun-loving people in the world. The vast expanse of swamps/marshes in Louisiana are like being in another part of the world.

New York, Seattle, Los Angeles - totally different experiences and all of them would make fun of my southern accent.

Visiting Alaska is higher on my list than most places in the world. I want to see brown bears and fly fish for salmon during the run.

If not headed to beaches, I'd say most Americans traveling for leisure would choose standard Europe trips to the most popular west Euro nations like the UK, Germany, Italy, France, and Spain.

Most people I know who went to Asia did so for business purposes in China or Japan, unless they are of Asian heritage. Almost nobody I know has been to India - there's not much appeal here but it may be different for Brits as it used to be part of their empire.

I can count seven people who have gone on African safari.

You know, one factor may be that most Americans only get two weeks of vacation per year. We have less time to take large trips. Combine less time with adequate activities here - and here we are. No foreign language or passport required.

I'm looking at only a few big trips remaining in my life. Alaska and Brazil will be two. Italy will be another, although I've been there. The last will be hard. Right now I'm thinking a two week trip around the British isles. I'd love to go to Greece, Germany, Norway, Iceland, Spain, France again, and Switzerland. I'd love to see Poland, Russia, and Japan but I won't get the chance. Same for Australia.

Then again, I could stay in the US and use the cost savings to get a full Y sequence

You're too kind. I thought your posts were quite eloquent, and perceptive as well.

Yes, there's only so much time and money, although they aren't always the determining factor. In a community of quite well off people, I only know two couples who went on safari in Africa, and none who've ever been to India. A few have gone to Hong Kong and then into the interior or Japan, but that's usually related to business.

I might as well be honest and say I have no desire to go to any of those places. Partly it's because I don't react well to the tropics or places where there is a big possibility that the food isn't clean. Heck, I got impetigo from sand fleas when I was on Sanibel Island in Florida! Now I make sure to stay away from places that say there is minimal spraying for mosquitoes. So, that also applies to certain Caribbean resorts where they don't spray, like the Rock Resorts

As for food borne illness, after three visits to Mexico, during which I got sick each and every time, even when they swore, as in Cancun, that they had their own water supply, and I used bottled water even to brush my teeth, that's off my list too.

Part of it, though, is the abject poverty. I'll never go back to Acapulco or even Caribbean Islands like St. Maartens, for example. How people can enjoy their drinks and big meals and luxurious accommodations when five minutes from your doorstep there are people living on the streets, mothers begging for food money for their babies is beyond me. There's also the total filth in some of these places. Even pictures of places like Bombay make me queasy. It's absolutely not for me, not unless I were going there to help.

Other than Europe, where there are also countries I'm not very interested in visiting, the only place I'd really like to go is the Near East and North Africa, but given the current situation I don't know when that will happen. I'd brave the other "dangers" for that. It might be nice to go to Brazil and Argentina, too, and visit relatives, but I'm afraid I'd be disappointed.

As for "adventure" trips, there's plenty of that here. I love the southwest, for example. On my last trip there I went white water rafting on the Colorado. It was great! I love camping too, and there's wonderful camping in upstate New York and New England. I'm always the only camper who brings along an espresso pot.

Oh, I do love Miami. I like so much about Cuban culture, including the Cubans themselves. It's indeed another world. I meet more actual Europeans there than I do in New York. It's very popular with them, both for vacations and to buy property.

 

[Rethel]

I don't know why it's so funny. If the school curriculum added just one hour in the English language class to learn of to read foreign words and names, that would solve the problem for everyone. In one hour there is plenty of time to explain the few differences in spelling conventions between English and at least 10 major languages like French, German, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Arabic, Hindi, Chinese and Japanese. Actually Hindi and Arabic are a bit superfluous as their romanisation is based on English and presents no particular difficulty to English speakers (other than sounds that don't exist in English, but that don't need to be taught).

This is a problem in english, that they do not know how to read at all.
In polish, if you do not know the language, you just read the name as
it is written, and everybody know what is going on. About your spelling
rules which you was takling a bit earlier about, I cannot agree outdside
of France. Rarly anybody know French. If you would say to me "Dekart"
I would have no idea who you are talking about. But there are of course
exaptions. Such Gaugiun is commonly pronouce gogę. EVERYBODY knows
this. Once I heard the guy who probably wanted to follow your rule about
learning correct pronouciation, and when he read (publicly!) that name he
pronouced it as... Żążin!!! It was neither in orthorgafic polish, neither in
French. I guess he read about rules of reading and got to the conclusion,
that it would be correct form. Everybody took him for an idiot. So, as you
see, better do not try to sound as original, becasue it can be a total mistake.
Better is to read as it is written - then everybody will understand, that you
do not know the language, than pretend to know, and become an idiot.

But english speakiers are total mess.
For example, almost every time they are trying to pronouce surname of
our prime minister, they do it wrong on thousand of different possibilities.

It is really so hard to say Shiiidlo or Shidwo (the closest variants). No, they
have to make a mess like Saydelou, Żydlo (like a Jew :-D ) Zedluu aso...
Theirs wrongdoing is based on unability to read at all.

So, insted of learning pronouciation in 100 languages, they should simply
learn how to read in their own LATIN alphabet. It would be much easier
and much better, with much efficacious effect.

 

[Rethel]

you might get teased if you go with what would be considered a "pretentious" choice.

So better is to be not undestand, than be "pretentious"?

What is the benefit of not being pretencious if
people have no idea who are you talking about?

What is the benefit, if you cannot find a person, who is
mentioned by lecturer in his speech, becasue you cannot
write it properly? Even google is useless, the more a book.

 

[Angela]

So better is to be not undestand, than be "pretentious"?

What is the benefit of not being pretencious if
people have no idea who are you talking about?

What is the benefit, if you cannot find a person, who is
mentioned by lecturer in his speech, becasue you cannot
write it properly? Even google is useless, the more a book.

I'll try it again. Most Americans don't look up how their surnames are pronounced in the presumed nation of origin. (They might not even know what that nation is...some "Millers", for example, don't know their surname was originally "Mueller" and German.) They don't care. Even if they look it up, they don't change the pronunciation. They go on pronouncing it the way their parents did, which is often the way that Americans would be likely to pronounce it using English phonetic schemes, although not always. In some areas, the pronunciation is rather idiosyncratic.

There is no misunderstanding going on. No one else here is likely to know you might be pronouncing your name "incorrectly". Again, the vast majority of the 300 million American people doesn't give a damn how you pronounce your surname except if they find it unpronounceable, in which case they'll mangle it or change it, or, perhaps, in cases like Stephen Colbert's where instead of pronouncing it Kol-burt, which would be the usual "American" pronunciation, he pronounces it Kol-beyre, a French pronunciation, they might indeed think it's pretentious, having been chosen by him when all his ancestors, including the ones in Ireland, pronounced it in the "English" way. "I" actually think it's pretentious, and very in keeping with his whole damn personality. Much more common is a famous, very wealthy American family surnamed DuPont. I assure you they and everyone else pronounces the name with a hard "English" t, not by French rules.

The only people, generally, who would know how it "should" be pronounced are Europeans from that country or who speak that language, and the vast majority of Americans have no interest in their opinion of the matter, even if they travel to Europe, which the vast majority of them do not.

I say this as someone who has seen this play out first hand. Half of my husband's family pronounce the surname more or less correctly, and half give it a much more "Americanized" pronunciation. There have been times I've wished his family did pronounce it in an easier way for Americans. You can't imagine how many times a day I have to slowly spell it over and over again to people. None of them spell it correctly, which they didn't even know. The way it was spelled at Ellis Island is the way it's spelled today. In fact, they didn't even know their great-grandfather's given name, the one who immigrated from Italy. The agent at Ellis Island had put down "Larry", and that's what he became to everyone, so they thought Lorenzo was his given name and put that down on his death certificate. For place of birth they put Reggio Calabria. That's a whole province. There was no birth certificate because you didn't have to bring it with you in those days at the very beginning of the 20th century. So you can see why, when one member of the family went to Calabria in the 60's he could find no trace of a "Lorenzo" by that surname in the city of Reggio Calabria. It didn't occur to him it might have meant the province, not the city. I finally found him but mainly because I didn't assume Lorenzo was actually his name; it was in truth Ilario, a saint's name from Calabria.

There's almost no way to change things around at this point. It would call your whole legal identity into question. Even if you just went for a name change, you'd have to go through endless paperwork to change your SS number, driver's license, insurance plans, you name it. If you did attempt it, it would take an incredible amount of time and effort, and even money.


The real lack of understanding is on the part of Europeans who just can't seem to come to grips with the fact that even in the first, but certainly by the second generation, people here identify as Americans. They don't care about a lot of things that matter a great deal to Europeans.

 

[Rethel]

There is no misunderstanding going on.

How not?
If you hear Kol-beyre how will you write it, if you only hear it?
There is no way you can know, that there is 't', and some other words can
be pronouced similarly. I did not say about written surnames, but about heard
ones. If you are on the lecture, you do nor SEE the surname, and if people are
pronoucing it, as they want, then there is no way you can, who is talking about
whom. Ways of writing this what someone is saying are too many...

 

[Angela]

How not?
If you hear Kol-beyre how will you write it, if you only hear it?
There is no way you can know, that there is 't', and some other words can
be pronouced similarly. I did not say about written surnames, but about heard
ones. If you are on the lecture, you do nor SEE the surname, and if people are
pronoucing it, as they want, then there is no way you can, who is talking about
whom. Ways of writing this what someone is saying are too many...

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The vast majority of Colberts in America pronounce it Kol-burt, which coincides with American pronunciation rules for Colbert. It is Stephen Colbert who pronounces it strangely, from American rules. I'm sure that initially he had to spell it for people.

That said, if an employer or store personnel etc. look at your paper work for example (driver's license, credit card), unless it's a very "English" name, they will usually ask you politely how you pronounce your name, so they can address you in the proper way, or you may and usually do correct them. That's no guarantee they'll get it right, but if you follow general "American" phonetic rules in how you pronounce it yourself, it's easier for them and for you. If it's really long, they will probably need help spelling it.

In terms of people spelling a name after hearing it pronounced, they'll usually ask you to spell it unless, again, it's a common English surname. It's just the way it is.

I think Americans may have more tolerance for all of this partly because English itself is not strictly phonetic. There are a lot of idiosyncratic words that just have to be memorized as to both pronunciation and spelling, a legacy in part of the mingling of Anglo-Saxon and French-Latinate words. That's what gives foreigners the most difficulty as far as learning English is concerned.

All of this may be one of the reasons that Americans so quickly resort to calling other people by their first names, although there are other more important ones. "American" first names were almost universally adopted by immigrants if the original name was very different or unusual in an English setting.

 

[Rethel]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The vast majority of Colberts in America pronounce it Kol-burt,

Firstly you must be familiar with the name. If you are not, you can;t know.
And this was only an example. There are thousands of surnames which you
do not know, and from hearing, you will not be able to know, what it is. The
matter is more complicated, when people spell it differently. Total mess.

Rather you are obtuse than me, becasue you cannot get a simple fact.