Barthelona Madrith Andaluthia Tharagotha

Steve K   Thursday, December 23, 2004, 07:40 GMT
I regularly speak Spanish to Latin Americans with mi athento castellano and never have any difficulty. They just comment that I must have learned my Spanish in Spain. I think you are all exaggerating the degree of bigtory there is in Latin America, no?
Brennus   Thursday, December 23, 2004, 08:12 GMT

Steve,

Not really. I think. You have to understand that Castillian Spanish is identified by most Latin Americans who are poor and who are of Indian or Mestizo stock, with European colonialism and oppresion and understandably so.
Jordi   Thursday, December 23, 2004, 09:00 GMT
Brennus:
As the intelligent linguist you seem to be --although it is impossible to master the planet's languages from Tierra del Fuego to Greenland as you seem to sometimes do-- you really surprise me. I imagine we are not children --I'm 45-- and that we have travelled widely all over the world, as Steve certainly has. I might not always agree with but there definitely is something really cosmopolitan in all he says.
Most Latin Americans (let's say the wide majority and even more so in the lower social levels) have never heard a Castillian Spanish in their all lives. The colonisers left the country two centuries ago and most of them spoke with Andalusian accents, which is actually where present day Latin American derives. The colonisers are their forebears, not mine who remained safely at home speaking Catalan or Spanish with a Catalan accent. The same can be said of the rest of Spaniards.
The accent of Latin Amrican masters and the upper class is a more refined version of their own, which doesn't include the "th" interdental. Many of them come to Spanish universities, you can look all that up in the Internet, but I can assure you they go back without pronouncing the "th" interdental. Not everybody in Spain pronounces it either although it is a prestigious form since it is the way they pronounce in Central Spain.
What happens is exactly what would happen to the US Corn Belt Anglo Farmer when he firs hears a "live" speech delivered in RP southern English or even Australian Standard. It's just plain odd and sounds ugly, simply because it isn't the way he usually speaks. To a certain extent is sounds foreign and human beings are quite a protective species who prefers to move within its own tribe.
Or would you say the US adores British accents because they remember the days they belonged to the British Empire?
These Anglo-centric lectures (or Spanish-centric lectures) do not resist the least analysis.
Jordi   Thursday, December 23, 2004, 09:02 GMT
I never have the time to edit and then always regret not having done so.
Xatufan   Thursday, December 23, 2004, 20:54 GMT
Of course, Jordi, a child would not have spoken with the intelligence Brennus has. :-<
Brennus   Thursday, December 23, 2004, 23:13 GMT

Jordi,

Don't get me wrong. Overall, I agree with most of what you have said. However, a large part of the Latin American population seems to be of Indian or Mestizo stock. These are mostly the kind of Hispanics I have met here in the United States. They are often poor and come here looking for jobs. They speak more of a racy slang Spanish; called "lower-class" Spanish by some people. --- They don't feel all that comfortable even with the ofiicial Mexican or Latin American Spanish that we get taught in high school. ---When I spoke some of it to a Mexican guy I worked with in the phone company 20 years ago he repled: "That's white man's Spanish. Go down to Mexico and see if they understand that!" I thought it interesting that he and other Mexicans I met used words that you would never hear in Spain like chango for "monkey", guajalote" for turkey", jítomate for "tomato", rucqa for "old lady" ; even probablia for "probably" and wallete for "wallet".

Europeans don't fare too well in tropical and sub-tropical climates. Look at how they failed to populate Rhodesia / Zimbabwe and South Africa in any large numbers. The most European parts of Latin America seem to be Argentina, Uruguay and maybe Chile; but the majority of Latinos I'm meeting seem to come from the indigenous American populations.
Reggie   Friday, December 24, 2004, 04:27 GMT
<<Don't get me wrong. Overall, I agree with most of what you have said. However, a large part of the Latin American population seems to be of Indian or Mestizo stock.>>

Firstly, "Indio" and "Mestizo" are pejorative in most of Latin America. They have gained some acceptance in the USA but they're the equivalent of the "nigger" in the USA.

<<These are mostly the kind of Hispanics I have met here in the United States. They are often poor and come here looking for jobs. They speak more of a racy slang Spanish; called "lower-class" Spanish by some people.>>

I'm not from the USA but from I've read Mexican illegals entering the USA are from the Southern parts of Mexico where most of the inhabitants have retained (by isolation from the "mixed" predominantly Spanish speaking majority) their original Native American languages along with a very basic "creole" version of Spanish and have also remained more "Indian" in appearance. This might explain why they don't understand or speak the so-called official Latin American Spanish your are referring to. So I guess you could say they're mostly "Indian" in culture.


<<"That's white man's Spanish. Go down to Mexico and see if they understand that!" I thought it interesting that he and other Mexicans I met used words that you would never hear in Spain like chango for "monkey", guajalote" for turkey", jítomate for "tomato", rucqa for "old lady" ; even probablia for "probably" and wallete for "wallet". >>

There are words that are used in the UK and Australia etc that are not heard or used in the States. They're called colloquialisms/slangs/idioms etc.

<<Europeans don't fare too well in tropical and sub-tropical climates. Look at how they failed to populate Rhodesia / Zimbabwe and South Africa in any large numbers. The most European parts of Latin America seem to be Argentina, Uruguay and maybe Chile; but the majority of Latinos I'm meeting seem to come from the indigenous American populations.>>

I fail to see what this has to do with anything.
Brennus   Friday, December 24, 2004, 07:16 GMT

Dear Reggie,

I read your post and have just a few follow-up comments to make if I may:

1) Concerning: "I fail to see what this (Europeans don't fare too well in tropical and sub-tropical climates) has to do with anything.

Language, geography and demographics are all interconected (or intertwined). This is not difficult to see.


2) Concerning: "Firstly, "Indio" and "Mestizo" are pejorative in most of Latin America. They have gained some acceptance in the USA but they're the equivalent of the "nigger" in the USA."

Let's not get carried away here, my friend. These words have never had the nasty connotations in Latin America that "nigger" has had in the United States.

3) "There are words that are used in the UK and Australia etc that are not heard or used in the States. They're called colloquialisms/slangs/idioms etc. "

This is true. English and Spanish are both pluricentric languages which differ a little bit from country to country and region to region. However, linguists consider the Spanish dialects of the Canary Islands and Mexico to be the most divergent; but be careful of the British / Australian/ American English analogy. From listening to Mexicans speak Spanish, I would say that American English is still closer to any form of British English than Mexican Spanish is to European Spanish.

4) "So I guess you could say they're {the Mexicans} mostly "Indian" in culture."

You've go it. Now you're talkin'.

Regards,

Brennus
Jordi   Friday, December 24, 2004, 07:31 GMT
Dear Brennus:
What makes a language least understandable for speakers of the same language living in other regions isn't, even if some might think so, the vocabulary, which is not different in its basic structure and usually affects specific fields (such as agriculture). It's mainly (or chiefly) pronunciation and intonation. I, of course, assume that morphology and syntax is near-identical since we speak of the same languages.
From that point of view Spanish has a simple vowel system and intonation pattern (slightly different in Latin America but very much present in Spanish regional varieties within Spain itself) that is absolutely the same all over the Spanish-speaking world. I'll give you an example. When Spaniards listen to South-American soap operas (quite popular in Spain in the past decade) they are put off by some words (although they very soon become familiar with them as happens with Australianisms in GB for the same reason) but they definitely understand the language from the start.
On the other hand, Americans are immediately put off by somebody speaking with a broad Australian accent or most British accents that aren't RP (RP is undestandable precisely because it has a clearer "diction" from the start.). Needless to say, the Kentucky farmer can be fathomless to the Northumbrian farmer. That will never happen, to the same extent, between the Chilean farmer and the Santander farmer. I'm not speaking of natives who speak another language but of two people both speaking Spanish as their native tongue.
Anyway, dialectology studies carried out from the 40s to 60s are outdated. Most important world languages tend nowadays to converge. It is more and more common nowadays to be exposed to other varieties and we see how differences are fading out within the same countries and come closer together in different countries speaking the same language.
Reggie   Friday, December 24, 2004, 07:37 GMT
<<4) "So I guess you could say they're {the Mexicans} mostly "Indian" in culture." >>

I was talking about the recent wave of illegal Mexican migrants.
Not the average Mexican.

<<Let's not get carried away here, my friend. These words have never had the nasty connotations in Latin America that "nigger" has had in the United States. >>

Yes it is and the fact that you don't know this is sufficient proof of your ignorance on this subject.


<<This is true. English and Spanish are both pluricentric languages which differ a little bit from country to country and region to region. However, linguists consider the Spanish dialects of the Canary Islands and Mexico to be the most divergent; but be careful of the British / Australian/ American English analogy. From listening to Mexicans speak Spanish, I would say that American English is still closer to any form of British English than Mexican Spanish is to European Spanish. >>

I'm bilingual, I know both languages (Spanish and English) to a reasonable fluent extent. Grammatically there's very little between the various dialects of English but pronunciation wise it differs greatly not forgetting the considerable number of idioms that exist in all dialects that are not used in others. US Americanisms are known all over the world (not just the English speaking world) becuase they're the world's only true superpower and hence dominate popular culture through TV, cinema etc..... That's why their "language" is ubiquitous.

Cultured American and European Spanish differe very little in comparison when it comes to pronunciation. The biggest difference I see is that VOSOTROS isn't used in American Spanish. Apart from that all Spanish varieties are mutually intelligible, more so than the English ones.
Brennus   Friday, December 24, 2004, 09:16 GMT

Dear Reggie,

Re: Apart from that all Spanish varieties are mutually intelligible, more so than the English ones.

A sweeping statement with no supporting evidence. There is a significant difference between some Mexican and Castillian Spanish words:
e.g. mesera / camarera "waitress" saco / abrigo "overcoat" chamaca /chaqueta "jacket", papilote / cometa "kite", banqueta, / acero "sidewalk" , (des)cansal / ascensor "elevator", zacate / cesped "lawn" plus the slang: camion - bus, fraco -cigar, jefe - father, papasote - sugar daddy, troca -cattle truck, vato - guy;dude etc. In fact, some speakers and teachers of standard Spanish I have met have told me that they sometimes have to ask Mexicans what certain words mean.

Re:"Firstly, "Indio" and "Mestizo" are pejorative in most of Latin America. They have gained some acceptance in the USA but they're the equivalent of the "nigger" in the USA."

No, sir. They would not be in American high school Spanish textbooks if this were the case. Especially in this politically correct age. I think you are taking something that is hearsay and blowing it a little out of proportion.

Hasta la vista!

Brennus
Jordi   Friday, December 24, 2004, 10:50 GMT
I won't bother making a list of synonyms which are used on one side of the pond and not used on the other. Since we share the same big Atlantic pond I obviously refer to the Spanish, English, French or Portuguese varieties spoken in Europe and spoken in the Americas.
It usually takes a few days -or weeks depending on your skills-- to get used to all this synonymia, which probably makes up for far less than 5% of what could be called common Spanish or the other languages. I've seen pictures (or should it be "movies"?) in quite a few Spanish varieties and I can assure you the European Spanish public around me, where I live, understood very well all that was going on, even when characters were farmers that belonged to some far-away Mexican mountain ranges. Some regional British films are shown because they should be dubbed in the US. We come back to the difficulties when phonetics differ.
The fact is Reggie is right --including on those things I won't speak about- and Spanish-speaking speakers understand each other right from the start although they might have to ask for an explanation -in Spanish, of course, to understand a word they haven't used previously. I remember an American looking at me baffled because I said "fortnight" in a casual normal way. After all, I grew up in Australia and not Arkansas and I never say "two weeks" for a "fortnight".
Anyway, things like "chamaca" have a regional usage in Spain too and the problems will always be with neologisms more than traditional regional usages. Common sense tells us neologisms (lift/elevator) should be agreed upon for the same language. The fact is Latin-America (that includes Quebec, of course) is more colonised by the US than their European counterparts and that can be specially observed in neologisms (new words for new things), which are often based on US terminology ("computadora" in the Americas and ordenador in Spain).
By the way, "sidewalk" (or should I say "pavement" as in UK English and as I've always said) is "acera" in European Spanish and not "acero", which mean "steel".
Everybody in Spain knows that Mexicans say "papasote" or "papasito" in Mexican Spanish. It comes from Spanish "papá" ("dad" or should I say "pa") in diminutive (ito) (daddy) or augmentative (ote) (big dad). After all, native speakers do have resources that are common to us all although we might not use them in the same words.
I still think you adopt a very "Etno-American" point of view regarding not only the English and Spanish languages but the relationship amongst their varieties. From a technical point of view the problems in synonyms and idioms are quite the same; from a biased point of view we tend to forget what happens in our home language. Nevertheless, Spanish pronunciation is much more solid and united than the English varieties. I've spoken fluently 4 languages since I was 8 years old and I think I know a bit about these four: Catalan,Spanish, French, English). Those are the four I will always speak best. Dad was a great traveller and took us all over the world and we spent several years in different countries.
I can assure you I have exactly the same feelings, linguistically speaking, towards (or should it be "toward"?) all the languages in the world.
A merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all,
By the way I say Father Christmas and you say Santa Claus and we both speak English but I also say "tomato" and you say "tomato" in a totally different way. I can assure you that "tomate" sounds exactly the same all over the Spanish-speaking world.
Jordi   Friday, December 24, 2004, 10:55 GMT
British films are "not" shown
Sorry for that or should I say "I beg your pardon" or "Excuse me" or?
Xatufan   Friday, December 24, 2004, 19:28 GMT
"Jitomate" is a Mexican variety of "tomate". In fact, the word "tomate" comes from Nahuatl.

"Mestizo" is the correct way to call most of Latin Americans, including me. Of course, you SHOULD NEVER use it as a vocative, as it would be offensive, but this is because most of the mestizos want to hide their indigenous ancestry.

About "indio"... Well, here in Ecuador, many indigenous groups want to be called "Indígenas" and not "indio", because this word is a bit offensive. "Indios" are actually the people from India. But there are even more offensive words, like "longo", at least in my country.
Reggie   Saturday, December 25, 2004, 00:30 GMT
<<A sweeping statement with no supporting evidence. There is a significant difference between some Mexican and Castillian Spanish words:>>

I have friends and acquaintances from all over Latin America (Peru, Colombia, Argentina, Chile etc...), including Spain, and we all understand each other perfectly. Make of that what you will.

<<No, sir. They would not be in American high school Spanish textbooks if this were the case. Especially in this politically correct age. I think you are taking something that is hearsay and blowing it a little out of proportion. >>

What I know doesn't come from textbooks, it's from real life experience.

<<"Mestizo" is the correct way to call most of Latin Americans, including me.>>

Mestizo is a word used to describe animals of mixed breed.

<<but this is because most of the mestizos want to hide their indigenous ancestry. >>

This is only partly true. It's more to do with the connotation the word has gained over time. Indio is used to someone that is primitive, stupid and so on... One could argue that word "nigger" shouldn't be perceived as racist since it is just a corruption of the Latin word for "black". Words are always changing and evolving like the word "gay" used to mean happy and jovial and now it is used to refer to gays. Anyways none of the Native Americans prior to the arrival of foreigners call themselves "indians" and it's the pinnacle of sheer arrogance to continue to do so.