When American celebrities can't pronounce their own name properly

Another reason for pronounce foreign names properly is when you make a voice search with your smartphone. If you want to get the Wikipedia page of the city of Xi'an but pronounce it "K-sigh æn" instead of 'shi aan', you are unlikely to find what you are looking for - unless Google voice recognition takes into account a variety of fancy American mispronunciations of all foreign names. Actually I just tested on my phone, and if I pronounce it properly I immediately get the results for Xi'an. If I read it like an American who doesn't know Chinese romanisation rules, I get 'cyan'. Even trying 'City of Xi'an' the bad pronunciation gives me 'city of science'. That proves my point. How are you guys going to survive in the digital age if you can't communicate with your phone? It's not just for Chinese cities, but any search involving any place, person or other name that is not English.
Good point. My english Siri has terrible problem with recognizing polish names when I speak. Also, I would love to see journalists and all news media to make an effort to get names right of people and places. It would rub off on ordinary people with time.
 
Xi'an but pronounce it "K-sigh æn" instead of 'shi aan',

And you did it just wrong, you will
not find it, becasue it is pronounced
śi.an with proper tones in addition.

Shi ≠ śi.

It can be compare, when someone is
saying Mynshien insted of Münch'en,
Hambursh insted of Hamburch', or
schlescht insted f schlech't...
 
That's irrelevant. I am talking about being able to pronounce you own surname (the only one you inherited) the way your ancestors always did, and the way people with that surnames still do in their country of origin.

I repeat once again: I agree with you, that bearers of the name should know how to pronouce it, but if they live in another country, where are different rules of reading or surname was adapted, it can, and should be pronouced by others, as such. In Poland lived - as I estimate - at least 10% Germans, but all their surnames are polonized, often of course have oiginal form, but in many cases dont. Should they change it again, if they did adapt it 500 years ago? Should they forced people how to pronouced umlauts, backtoungish r or soft ch in the middle or at the end of the word? Come on!

Examples:

Müller/Möller adapted as Muller, Miler, Miller, Moller and similar.
Schmidt as Szmid, Szmit, and similar
-stein (which hurt you so much) as stein, szejn, sztyn (all oldpolish adaptations), sztajn, and similar.
-ie as i, ie...
-ei as ei, ej, aj, y, e...

usw, aso, etc.
 
Good point. My english Siri has terrible problem with recognizing polish names when I speak.

On my side I have noticed considerable progress from Google's voice recognition over the last 3 or 4 years. Before I couldn't dictate any sentence without having to edit every two words. But now, when the Wi-Fi/4g connection is stable at least, it gets most sentences right in English, French and even Japanese. The latter is really a a big step forward as it is so tedious to have to manually choose kanji from a list of sometimes over 20 homophones, let alone changing the encoding between the three Japanese scripts every few words.

Nevertheless, one of my biggest frustrations with technology at the moments is that the multiple language input doesn't work well at all. It keeps mixing up languages and coming up with ridiculously nonsensical words that no one ever uses. So every time I send a text message, dictate an email or perform a search in different language, I have to first go to the settings and change the voice recognition language. That's about 5 to 10 times a day. Really annoying.

Also, I would love to see journalists and all news media to make an effort to get names right of people and places. It would rub off on ordinary people with time.

Totally agree. All too often journalists try to sink to the level of the common people by adopting their linguistic mistakes (presumably to attract a larger audience) rather than set the standards for everyone else. There are exceptions, though, but in the more eye-brow niche markets.
 
And you did it just wrong, you will
not find it, becasue it is pronounced
śi.an with proper tones in addition.

Shi ≠ śi.

As I explained above, when there is no exact equivalent in English (or in one's mother tongue) it is fine to use the nearest equivalent. There are many different types of voiceless alveolar fricative, but most people (in any language) wouldn't be able to distinguish all of them, unless they are trained linguists with a good ear.

It can be compare, when someone is
saying Mynshien insted of Münch'en,
Hambursh insted of Hamburch', or
schlescht insted f schlech't...

Ditto. What's more these sounds vary depending on the region and dialect of German. In the Rhineland, for example, the two are indistinguishable. Anyway I don't expect an English speaker who hasn't learned German to be able to pronounce the German ch, at least the voiceless velar fricative in words like Bach or durch, which is only found in Scottish English and Scouse. The voiceless palatal fricative [ç] occurs in British and Australian English in words like hue, but not in American English.
 
I repeat once again: I agree with you, that bearers of the name should know how to pronouce it, but if they live in another country, where are different rules of reading or surname was adapted, it can, and should be pronouced by others, as such. In Poland lived - as I estimate - at least 10% Germans, but all their surnames are polonized, often of course have oiginal form, but in many cases dont. Should they change it again, if they did adapt it 500 years ago? Should they forced people how to pronouced umlauts, backtoungish r or soft ch in the middle or at the end of the word? Come on!

Of course you shouldn't force people to learn to make sounds that aren't found in their language. Here is an example of what I mean. Take the German name Wallenstein.

- Pronouncing it Way-len-steen (as some Americans might do) would be wrong.
- Saying Vaah-len-shtine would be correct.

Of course there are no sounds in that name that aren't found in English. So let's take another example: Schönberg. Now, the German ö and r sounds don't exist in English, so it's fine to replace them by the most similar sound, such as the long ə sound (as in bird with a silent r) and the English r. The important here is to make a long 'ə' sound, and not an 'o' or any other English vowel. Let's say like the Irish given name Sean but with a longer vowel. As for the e in berg, it should rhyme with bear and not with bird. So something like Seean-bear-g. It won't sound the same as in German, but it is definitely better than saying scone-birg like many Americans.

Examples:

Müller/Möller adapted as Muller, Miler, Miller, Moller and similar.
Schmidt as Szmid, Szmit, and similar
-stein (which hurt you so much) as stein, szejn, sztyn (all oldpolish adaptations), sztajn, and similar.
-ie as i, ie...
-ei as ei, ej, aj, y, e...

usw, aso, etc.

I completely agree that it is ok for Americans to Anglicise a foreign (e.g. German) surname, especially when its an occupational name that can be easily translate like Mühler/Miller, Schumacher/Shoemaker or Schmidt/Smith. Patronymic surnames are even easier to translate (Janssen => Johnson). It's much better to change the spelling officially and pronounce it correctly in English than to stick with the original German and mispronounce it. Ditto for German names in Polish.

Now, even if it isn't occupational names can often be translated based on the root components. For instance, a name like Ostwald would become Eastwood in English.

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.
 
@Maciamo,

We do try to pronounce foreign language surnames. To pronounce them perfectly requires education. But that education holds no practical value. Americans who carry foreign language surnames aren't deeply offended when people miss pronounce their names and infact they often they miss pronounce their names.

Americans don't have to pronounce their surnames correctly to respect their family's heritage. And trust me many Americans are aware of and proud of family heritage. But that doesn't mean we identify with the *multiple* countries our ancestors lived in and languages they spoke. Most of us, not all obviously, only identify as American and with the English language. Maybe you don't understand that. Maybe in other countries it takes more generations to assimilate.

Americans aren't "lazy" or "afraid" of learning a new language. We just don't think pronouncing a surname with a slight or strong English accent is offensive.
 
And in case you didn't know Maciamo many Indians in America replace their birth first name with an English first name so that Americans can pronounce their name. If that isn't disrespecting your ancestor country and family I don't know what is. It's all about practicality.

And btw Americans can learn to say and do say most foreign language surnames but we do so with mostly English pronunciation. We do the best we can. We don't learn to make sounds which we literally don't know how to make. I don't see why that is a problem.
 
In the Rhineland, for example, the two are indistinguishable.

It has to be some villige dialect, becasue normal german speaker does
not speak like that. It would be even silly. Even I can hear the difference...

Anyway I don't expect an English speaker who hasn't learned German to be able to pronounce the German ch,

This is exactly, what you proposed - insted of using adapt form, you
want to pronouce as it is in original, BUT now, you want to use some
cripple corrupt form insetd of form which fits to language of the user.

The voiceless palatal fricative [ç] occurs in British and Australian English in words like hue, but not in American English.

But saying this at the end of the word or in the middle it is different story.
 
- Pronouncing it Way-len-steen (as some Americans might do) would be wrong.
- Saying Vaah-len-shtine would be correct.

Ok, I get it, but if there is a rule, that stein is reading
as stin, always, then I don't see a problem.

Of course there are no sounds in that name that aren't found in English. So let's take another example: Schönberg. Now, the German ö and r sounds don't exist in English, so it's fine to replace them by the most similar sound, such as the long ə sound (as in bird with a silent r) and the English r. The important here is to make a long 'ə' sound, and not an 'o' or any other English vowel. Let's say like the Irish given name Sean but with a longer vowel. As for the e in berg, it should rhyme with bear and not with bird. So something like Seean-bear-g. It won't sound the same as in German, but it is definitely better than saying scone-birg like many Americans.

So you would have to create such rule IN ENGLISH.

I completely agree that it is ok for Americans to Anglicise a foreign (e.g. German) surname, especially when its an occupational name that can be easily translate like Mühler/Miller, Schumacher/Shoemaker or Schmidt/Smith. Patronymic surnames are even easier to translate (Janssen => Johnson).

And here I am against. This is total corruption and denationalization.

Adapt it does not mean translate of replace by local native variant.

It's much better to change the spelling officially and pronounce it correctly in English than to stick with the original German and mispronounce it. Ditto for German names in Polish.

Some are also in original orthoraphy, and noone makes any problems if someone differently spealling.
Some spelled ö as o some as e. No big deal. Everybody understand the thing.

Now, even if it isn't occupational names can often be translated based on the root components. For instance, a name like Ostwald would become Eastwood in English. The ultimate rule for Americans with foreign names should be: if you can't pronounce it, change it to an English name.

Terrible.
So you have problem with correct spealling, but has no problem with
total desctrucion of the original name by replaceing it by local variant.
facepalm_smiley.gif


It's better than to sound like a fool who can't pronounce his/her own name properly.

0:1. Everything or nothing. Tragic.
 
Maciamo - I admire your zeal for correctness and sympathize with your view. Americans largely don't care. Most of us couldn't even find Ukraine or Portugal on a map. The only real second language is Spanish for dealing with Latinos.

I'm not exactly certain how families who don't anglicize their name manage to change the pronunciation of it. Maybe it's due to accents. If it happened over generations, would you expect the children to tell their elders it needs to be changed now?

I can say that in Louisiana, some obviously french words/names are anglicized on a case by case basis. Herbert can be Her-burt or ay-bear (almost always ay-bear). I frequently guess incorrectly and I suppose it's just something they learn on a case by case basis.

The only family groups that I know to keep a strong family identity with the old countries are the Scottish clans.

Since getting into the genealogy hobby I have been asking people "where does that name come from" or "what does your last name mean." Almost nobody knows unless it's something as simple as Smith.

Example: A family named Fink who looks very German had no idea that it was a German name or that it meant Finch. Apparently it had never crossed their minds, and these aren't heathens but educated and well-kept people. I don't know how else to say that most Americans simply don't care. My own surname can be found in England, Scotland, and even Ireland but nobody in my family had any idea where our people came from. I think we had about six generations written down from an old-timer's family bible.

History knowledge in general is not much beyond "we sure kicked the Japs and Germans around in WW2." It's sad honestly. There are plenty of smart people but the main problem is they just don't care. Nevermind the ones who can barely read and drop out of school. As for learning spelling shifts of other languages - hahahahaha. Very few Americans could identify by sound any European language, except perhaps Spanish. Never expect this of Americans.

From German immigrants around where I live, the language was completely lost in about two generations. The grandkids had no interest in learning it. Older Americans seemed perfectly content to toss their heritage aside. I personally wouldn't.

Maybe it had to do with the fact that everybody came together to form a new culture in a higher risk environment. It was a "what have you got to show for yourself" type attitude rather than leaning on some sort of family pride. The early Scots-Irish people, for example, moved from Scotland to Northern Ireland for a hundred years. Then they came to Virginia. Their kids moved to North Carolina. Their kids took advantage of land grants in Georgia or Tennessee. Their kids moved on to Texas or Arkansas. Their kids or grand kids might have gone to Detroit for a job in the automobile factories. After attending school, their kids could end up in almost any state. I never heard a lot of stories about the past from old timers growing up. People constantly on the move attach less meaning to places.

The blue blooded families who have very solid family histories are more often the New England types who settled in Boston and stayed there for 13 generations. My family branch that goes back to Plymouth is very well documented going back to England in the 1500's.

We do have a high enough population to produce plenty of folks that do care. It currently is a tiny percentage and I'm hoping the ethnicity test fad will increase awareness.
 
That's odd considering that the spelling rules in Turkish were mostly copied from German, and like German it is perfectly phonetic. Turkish even has the same sounds as in German (ö, ü). There are really just a few consonants to know:

C => like an English j (a sound that doesn't exist in German)
Ç => like an English ch (ditto)
Ş => like an English sh
Ğ => lengthen the preceding vowel (everybody knows it in the name Erdoğan)

Do you really know Turks in Germany who can't remember how these four letters are pronounced?

Yes I know people that have a hard time pronouncing their name especially the ğ just because depending where you come form people pronounce it differently in Turkey were we are from in the west we make it more like the ghayn from arabic would be the best way to explain it. Some people have trouble with the ğ, and there are people who also have trouble with e in Turkish because in German the e makes the e sound but in Turkish it makes more of an a say like minare which is pronounce like men nah ray. Some of the Turks in Germany are like 4,5, or even 6th generations in some cases. So some of them parents probably do not even speak Turkish and maybe their parents parents didn't even speak Turkish its just Turkish by name.
 
@tahir0010,

Turks in Germany miss pronounce their surnames? Like how Germans in America miss pronounce their surnames.
 
@Maciamo,

We do try to pronounce foreign language surnames. To pronounce them perfectly requires education. But that education holds no practical value. Americans who carry foreign language surnames aren't deeply offended when people miss pronounce their names and infact they often they miss pronounce their names.

Americans don't have to pronounce their surnames correctly to respect their family's heritage. And trust me many Americans are aware of and proud of family heritage. But that doesn't mean we identify with the *multiple* countries our ancestors lived in and languages they spoke. Most of us, not all obviously, only identify as American and with the English language. Maybe you don't understand that. Maybe in other countries it takes more generations to assimilate.

Americans aren't "lazy" or "afraid" of learning a new language. We just don't think pronouncing a surname with a slight or strong English accent is offensive.


You haven't read at all what I wrote in this thread. You do not need to learn a foreign language to know the basic spelling conventions of a language. It's only a few letters to remember, typically those involving the sh and ch sounds, as these are written very differently in languages like English, French, German, Italian, Turkish or Chinese. 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!

Americans don't need to know or identify with the multiple countries of their ancestors. I am talking about their surname they inherited, that's all.

And in case you didn't know Maciamo many Indians in America replace their birth first name with an English first name so that Americans can pronounce their name. If that isn't disrespecting your ancestor country and family I don't know what is. It's all about practicality.

It's not only Indians who adopt English given names. Most immigrants do it, be it in America or in any country where one migrates. That's because it's so much easier to integrate with a local given name. Not doing it actually shows that the parents are not intending to integrate in the country in which they immigrated. 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.

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.

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.


And btw Americans can learn to say and do say most foreign language surnames but we do so with mostly English pronunciation. We do the best we can. We don't learn to make sounds which we literally don't know how to make. I don't see why that is a problem.

No you don't. Otherwise I wouldn't have started this thread. All the examples os celebrity names above can be easily pronounced by English speakers, and yet both the way the celebrity in question pronounce their own name, and the way other Americans pronounce it are mistaken. It's not mistakes due to inability to pronounce sounds, as I have explained again and again. Obviously if you can't understand what I write there is no point explaining it one more time, nor hope that you will understand.
 
It has to be some villige dialect, becasue normal german speaker does
not speak like that. It would be even silly. Even I can hear the difference...

Not at all. I am talking about major dialects spoken by a good part of local people like Kölsch (Colognian dialect) and other Ripuarian dialects. I studied German in Berlin as an exchange student, so these dialects sound funny to me too. At the time my German was good enough to pass for a native as long as the conversation didn't involve too complicated vocabulary. My accent was native standard German. I have been many times to the Rhineland, including twice over the last year, and can't help but smile when locals say Reschnung instead of Rechnung in a restaurant.
 
Ok, I get it, but if there is a rule, that stein is reading
as stin, always, then I don't see a problem.

Stine is not the same as stin. Rhyme with Fine and fin, Dine and din...


So you would have to create such rule IN ENGLISH.

Not just in English, for everyone. Or at least all Westerners as there is probably little point is asking Khoisan hunter-gatherers, Tibetan monks and Moluccan islanders to know how to pronounce European names.


And here I am against. This is total corruption and denationalization.

Adapt it does not mean translate of replace by local native variant.


Terrible.
So you have problem with correct spealling, but has no problem with
total desctrucion of the original name by replaceing it by local variant.
facepalm_smiley.gif

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, are ethnically mixed from all over Europe, and just care about making life easy in the present, then why shouldn't they adopt English surnames? 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.
 
Yes I know people that have a hard time pronouncing their name especially the ğ just because depending where you come form people pronounce it differently in Turkey were we are from in the west we make it more like the ghayn from arabic would be the best way to explain it.

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?
 
Americans largely don't care. Most of us couldn't even find Ukraine or Portugal on a map.

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.

The only real second language is Spanish for dealing with Latinos.

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.


I'm not exactly certain how families who don't anglicize their name manage to change the pronunciation of it. Maybe it's due to accents. If it happened over generations, would you expect the children to tell their elders it needs to be changed now?

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.).

I can say that in Louisiana, some obviously french words/names are anglicized on a case by case basis. Herbert can be Her-burt or ay-bear (almost always ay-bear). I frequently guess incorrectly and I suppose it's just something they learn on a case by case basis.

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?


The only family groups that I know to keep a strong family identity with the old countries are the Scottish clans.

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.

Since getting into the genealogy hobby I have been asking people "where does that name come from" or "what does your last name mean." Almost nobody knows unless it's something as simple as Smith.

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


Example: A family named Fink who looks very German had no idea that it was a German name or that it meant Finch. Apparently it had never crossed their minds, and these aren't heathens but educated and well-kept people. I don't know how else to say that most Americans simply don't care. My own surname can be found in England, Scotland, and even Ireland but nobody in my family had any idea where our people came from. I think we had about six generations written down from an old-timer's family bible.

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

History knowledge in general is not much beyond "we sure kicked the Japs and Germans around in WW2." It's sad honestly. There are plenty of smart people but the main problem is they just don't care. Nevermind the ones who can barely read and drop out of school. As for learning spelling shifts of other languages - hahahahaha. Very few Americans could identify by sound any European language, except perhaps Spanish. Never expect this of Americans.

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).


Maybe it had to do with the fact that everybody came together to form a new culture in a higher risk environment. It was a "what have you got to show for yourself" type attitude rather than leaning on some sort of family pride. The early Scots-Irish people, for example, moved from Scotland to Northern Ireland for a hundred years. Then they came to Virginia. Their kids moved to North Carolina. Their kids took advantage of land grants in Georgia or Tennessee. Their kids moved on to Texas or Arkansas. Their kids or grand kids might have gone to Detroit for a job in the automobile factories. After attending school, their kids could end up in almost any state. I never heard a lot of stories about the past from old timers growing up. People constantly on the move attach less meaning to places.

The blue blooded families who have very solid family histories are more often the New England types who settled in Boston and stayed there for 13 generations. My family branch that goes back to Plymouth is very well documented going back to England in the 1500's.

We do have a high enough population to produce plenty of folks that do care. It currently is a tiny percentage and I'm hoping the ethnicity test fad will increase awareness.

Again, what does that have to do with pronunciation?
 

This thread has been viewed 36974 times.

Back
Top