I was watching television and there was a Greek movie playing on HBO and at first I thought it was Spanish until I watched a couple of seconds of it..I thought it was odd but cool!
Similar accents of languages apparently unrelated
When I was in Amsterdam, I was struck by how much more Dutch vowels sounded like American vowels than English vowels do, and Americans and the English speak the same language! To me, Dutch sounded like a foreign language being spoken with an American accent, and when Dutch people did speak English to me, their accent sounded lighter and more "natural" (in terms of what I'm used to hearing) than anything I heard in England.
I add something that I have noticed. I was listening to one romanian song on TV. I must say it was easy to notice that this language came from latin group (it was shown by a lot of "s" endings and this special sound "ch" used very often). Nevertheless I couldn't get rid of the feeling that almost all of the sounds were taken from Polish (my native tongue) except of sound "ch" (in Polish it is harder). They sounded like polish but as if they had changed their natural position in the word.
Could anyone explain me the reason of my observation?
Could anyone explain me the reason of my observation?
The sounds were not taken from Polish.
By contrary, the Polish names Mariusz and Marian (masculine) are considered as being of Romanian origin.
Romanian language has all the extra Slavic vowels <Î, Â, Ă for example> and consonants. Polish language had influence only in Northern Romania, especially on Northern Moldovan sub-dialect.
Also, your remark regarding many words ending with <s>, it may not be very accurate. Unlike in others Romance languages, <s> is not used for plurals, and also the <s> ending words are rather few.
By contrary, the Polish names Mariusz and Marian (masculine) are considered as being of Romanian origin.
Romanian language has all the extra Slavic vowels <Î, Â, Ă for example> and consonants. Polish language had influence only in Northern Romania, especially on Northern Moldovan sub-dialect.
Also, your remark regarding many words ending with <s>, it may not be very accurate. Unlike in others Romance languages, <s> is not used for plurals, and also the <s> ending words are rather few.
However I can't agree with you because the feeling still stays the feeling. I can't change it. On the other hand I am conscious of the fact that Romanian is a language more similar e.g. to Italian.
I try to explane it in the other way round. I feel that I would not have any problems with pronunciation sounds in Romanian. They seem to me almost idetical to Polish (most of them). I can't say the same about any other language (I mean Slavic) in East and Middle Europe though I understand some of them quite well without learning. Pronunciation is different even if we look at the same word (some vowels are softer, the stress is put different etc.)
I try to explane it in the other way round. I feel that I would not have any problems with pronunciation sounds in Romanian. They seem to me almost idetical to Polish (most of them). I can't say the same about any other language (I mean Slavic) in East and Middle Europe though I understand some of them quite well without learning. Pronunciation is different even if we look at the same word (some vowels are softer, the stress is put different etc.)
It will be more interesting if people find that the pronouciation of Human in English is quite similar with that of "Ren"(人) in Chinese. If someone do some further investigation on this phenomenon, more examples surely can be reached.
I think the reason is that all human in this world are originiated from Monkeys in million years ago. Before these monkeys scattered over all continents, they did share one kind of same language, which still remains in various languagies of this world.
It is not absurd, some researchers have worked out a few papers on this problem.
Take dogs for an extreme example, can dogs throughout the earth communicate each other by their languages or signals?
I think the reason is that all human in this world are originiated from Monkeys in million years ago. Before these monkeys scattered over all continents, they did share one kind of same language, which still remains in various languagies of this world.
It is not absurd, some researchers have worked out a few papers on this problem.
Take dogs for an extreme example, can dogs throughout the earth communicate each other by their languages or signals?
Actually, Polish language being the one influenced by Romanian language may be indeed true. The conjugation of Polish verb "to be" has some forms which, somehow, could be considered Latin and obviously different from other Slavic forms:
to be
I am - Ja jestem - Eu sunt
You are - Ty jesteś - Tu eşti
He is - On jest - El este
She is - Ona jest - Ea este
It is - To jest - El/Ea este
We are - My jesteśmy - Noi suntem
You are - Wy jesteście - Tu eşti
They are - Oni są - Ei sunt
They (women) are - One są - Ele sunt
Glad to be back. I hope nobody will find this text as being offensive...
to be
I am - Ja jestem - Eu sunt
You are - Ty jesteś - Tu eşti
He is - On jest - El este
She is - Ona jest - Ea este
It is - To jest - El/Ea este
We are - My jesteśmy - Noi suntem
You are - Wy jesteście - Tu eşti
They are - Oni są - Ei sunt
They (women) are - One są - Ele sunt
Glad to be back. I hope nobody will find this text as being offensive...
We were descended from apes, sino. Not monkeys.
Many other species have variances in communication. Birds of the same species in different areas, for instance, have been found to sing in different "dialects" that are passed down from parent to offspring, and yes, this sometimes impedes mating, as birds of different dialects will shun singers of a "strange" dialect.
Other than the natural limitations imposed on human speech by the physical structures of our vocal apparatuses, and in the similarites of thought processes and brain organization, I would not expect human languages to naturally show any basic commonalities simply based on descent from a common ancestor.
As for dogs communicating with each other, I would imagine that they can, although that doesn't mean much; they are using body language, not abstract speech. Humans from different language groups can communicate quite well through basic body language as well -- some things are pretty universal.
Many other species have variances in communication. Birds of the same species in different areas, for instance, have been found to sing in different "dialects" that are passed down from parent to offspring, and yes, this sometimes impedes mating, as birds of different dialects will shun singers of a "strange" dialect.
Other than the natural limitations imposed on human speech by the physical structures of our vocal apparatuses, and in the similarites of thought processes and brain organization, I would not expect human languages to naturally show any basic commonalities simply based on descent from a common ancestor.
As for dogs communicating with each other, I would imagine that they can, although that doesn't mean much; they are using body language, not abstract speech. Humans from different language groups can communicate quite well through basic body language as well -- some things are pretty universal.
I think Spanish has many sounds that resemble Arabic. I find that the Spanish "j" gives a very Arabic sound to the language.
Read here : http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idioma_espa%C3%B1ol
La invasión musulmana propició la inserción de numerosos arabismos y, en la fonética, una especial aceptación del fonema velar fuerte [x] ("j").
Read here : http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idioma_espa%C3%B1ol
La invasión musulmana propició la inserción de numerosos arabismos y, en la fonética, una especial aceptación del fonema velar fuerte [x] ("j").
Miriam : « La invasión musulmana propició la inserción de numerosos arabismos y, en la fonética, una especial aceptación del fonema velar fuerte [x] ("j"). »
Je n'en suis pas sûr du tout.
Par exemple, en castillan médiéval on écrivait <fijo> = {fils — Sohn} ce que les hispanophones modernes écrivent <hijo> et prononcent [ixo] (API & X-Sampa). À l'époque de l'ancien castillan, <fijo> se prononçait [fiʒo] (API) = [fiZo] (X-Sampa).
Le passage de [ʒ] (API) = [Z] (X-Sampa) à [x] (API & X-Sampa) s'est fait durant le XVIIe siècle.
Autre exemple :
AE (ancien espagnol) <mugier> [muʒjeɾ] (API) [muZje4] (X-Sampa) {femme — Frau} —> Es <mujer> [muxeɾ] (API) [muxe4] (X-Sampa).
NB : désolé pour la transcription approximative de Es <r> & de AE <gie> — je n'en suis pas sûr du tout/
En tout cas, d'aprèsce que j'ai lu, le phénomène se serait produit au XVIIe s, bien après la chute de Grenade (1492).
Enfin :
AE <dixo> [diʃo] (API) [diSo] (X-Sampa) {dit — sagte} —> Es <dijo> [dixo] (API & X-Sampa).
Même chronologie.
Il existe un bon moyen de se souvenir que l'apparition de la jota est un phénomène postérieur à l'Espagne musulmane. Aujourd'hui, les Espagnols écrivent <Don Quijote> [donkixote] (API & X-Sampa). Il existe pourtant une écriture archaïsante : <Don Quixote> [donkixote] (API & X-Sampa). Cette écriture est une survivance de l'époque (révolue) où <Don Quixote> ***POUVAIT*** se prononcer [donkiʃote] (API) [donkiSote] (X-Sampa). C'est cette ancienne prononciation qui a donné Fr <Don Quichotte> [dɔ~kiʃɔt(ə)] (API) [dÕkiSOt(@)] (X-Sampa) & It <Don Chisciotto>.
PS : tu retrouves le graphème <x> pour transcrire le phonème [ʃ] (API) [S] (X-Sampa) en catalan.
Je n'en suis pas sûr du tout.
Par exemple, en castillan médiéval on écrivait <fijo> = {fils — Sohn} ce que les hispanophones modernes écrivent <hijo> et prononcent [ixo] (API & X-Sampa). À l'époque de l'ancien castillan, <fijo> se prononçait [fiʒo] (API) = [fiZo] (X-Sampa).
Le passage de [ʒ] (API) = [Z] (X-Sampa) à [x] (API & X-Sampa) s'est fait durant le XVIIe siècle.
Autre exemple :
AE (ancien espagnol) <mugier> [muʒjeɾ] (API) [muZje4] (X-Sampa) {femme — Frau} —> Es <mujer> [muxeɾ] (API) [muxe4] (X-Sampa).
NB : désolé pour la transcription approximative de Es <r> & de AE <gie> — je n'en suis pas sûr du tout/
En tout cas, d'aprèsce que j'ai lu, le phénomène se serait produit au XVIIe s, bien après la chute de Grenade (1492).
Enfin :
AE <dixo> [diʃo] (API) [diSo] (X-Sampa) {dit — sagte} —> Es <dijo> [dixo] (API & X-Sampa).
Même chronologie.
Il existe un bon moyen de se souvenir que l'apparition de la jota est un phénomène postérieur à l'Espagne musulmane. Aujourd'hui, les Espagnols écrivent <Don Quijote> [donkixote] (API & X-Sampa). Il existe pourtant une écriture archaïsante : <Don Quixote> [donkixote] (API & X-Sampa). Cette écriture est une survivance de l'époque (révolue) où <Don Quixote> ***POUVAIT*** se prononcer [donkiʃote] (API) [donkiSote] (X-Sampa). C'est cette ancienne prononciation qui a donné Fr <Don Quichotte> [dɔ~kiʃɔt(ə)] (API) [dÕkiSOt(@)] (X-Sampa) & It <Don Chisciotto>.
PS : tu retrouves le graphème <x> pour transcrire le phonème [ʃ] (API) [S] (X-Sampa) en catalan.
Brennus,
Dialectal Romanian-except for the Southern patois-is much more complex
phonetically than standard Romanian. The patois spoken in Banat, Transylvania and Moldova have a lot more vocals than the relatively few vocals found in Standard Romanian, almost entirely built on the "Wallachian" dialect.
It happened to me, not too long ago, that my father, a cousin and I were
talking our Transylvanian patois in a store. An American lady, married to a Pole-she couldn't speak Polish though-approached us asking whether we speak Polish because that is how our language sounded to her, who spoke only English.
In fact, Romanian, whenever is not used in its standard form (with the wonted neologisms) is almost always likely to be mistaken, by people untrained in linguistics, for a Slavic language.
Dialectal Romanian-except for the Southern patois-is much more complex
phonetically than standard Romanian. The patois spoken in Banat, Transylvania and Moldova have a lot more vocals than the relatively few vocals found in Standard Romanian, almost entirely built on the "Wallachian" dialect.
It happened to me, not too long ago, that my father, a cousin and I were
talking our Transylvanian patois in a store. An American lady, married to a Pole-she couldn't speak Polish though-approached us asking whether we speak Polish because that is how our language sounded to her, who spoke only English.
In fact, Romanian, whenever is not used in its standard form (with the wonted neologisms) is almost always likely to be mistaken, by people untrained in linguistics, for a Slavic language.
If the j commes after the muculman spain the many muculmans that became spanish must have had some influence in the language. There must have been many people captured.
[En tout cas, d'aprèsce que j'ai lu, le phénomène se serait produit au XVIIe s, bien après la chute de Grenade (1492). ]
How long a language would take to change the written rules?
[En tout cas, d'aprèsce que j'ai lu, le phénomène se serait produit au XVIIe s, bien après la chute de Grenade (1492). ]
How long a language would take to change the written rules?
Miriam : il est possible, quoique non nécessaire, que des locuteurs arabisants aient influencé la phonologie du castillan. Mais rien n'est moins sûr en ce qui concerne la jota.
« How long a language would take to change the written rules? »
C'est variable. En général ça prend beaucoup de temps.
Par exemple le pronom personnel latin <me> {moi — mich} se prononçait [me].
En Gaule du Nord, vers 600, La <me> se prononçait [meI ̯], sans changement orthographique.
Puis, plus tard, vers le Xe siècle on écrivit <mei> en ancien français — de sorte que la prononciation [meI ̯] collait avec la graphie <mei> de l'ancien français.
Mais (pas de chance !), vers le XIIe siècle, la prononciation a encore changé : on ne disait plus [meI ̯] mais [mɔI ̯]. Heureusement (ou peut-être pas !) deux graphies ont coexisté : <mei> & <moi> pour [mɔI ̯].
Aujourd'hui, en 2006, nous disons [mwa] alors que la graphie n'a pas changé puisqu'on écrit <moi> comme au XIIe siècle, il y a 800 ans — c'est-à-dire quand la prononciation était [mɔI ̯].
Peut-être qu'en 2300 les Français écriront <moa> en disant [mwa] ?
NB : toutes les choses écrites entre 2 [] sont des sons ; toutes les choses écrites entre 2 <> sont des écrits.
PS : il y a 2 système pour transcrire les sons
1/ API : [me] [meI ̯] [mɔI ̯] [mwa]
2/ X-Sampa : [me] [meI_^] [mOI_^] [mwa]
Tu peux consulter les 2 ici : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA .
« How long a language would take to change the written rules? »
C'est variable. En général ça prend beaucoup de temps.
Par exemple le pronom personnel latin <me> {moi — mich} se prononçait [me].
En Gaule du Nord, vers 600, La <me> se prononçait [meI ̯], sans changement orthographique.
Puis, plus tard, vers le Xe siècle on écrivit <mei> en ancien français — de sorte que la prononciation [meI ̯] collait avec la graphie <mei> de l'ancien français.
Mais (pas de chance !), vers le XIIe siècle, la prononciation a encore changé : on ne disait plus [meI ̯] mais [mɔI ̯]. Heureusement (ou peut-être pas !) deux graphies ont coexisté : <mei> & <moi> pour [mɔI ̯].
Aujourd'hui, en 2006, nous disons [mwa] alors que la graphie n'a pas changé puisqu'on écrit <moi> comme au XIIe siècle, il y a 800 ans — c'est-à-dire quand la prononciation était [mɔI ̯].
Peut-être qu'en 2300 les Français écriront <moa> en disant [mwa] ?
NB : toutes les choses écrites entre 2 [] sont des sons ; toutes les choses écrites entre 2 <> sont des écrits.
PS : il y a 2 système pour transcrire les sons
1/ API : [me] [meI ̯] [mɔI ̯] [mwa]
2/ X-Sampa : [me] [meI_^] [mOI_^] [mwa]
Tu peux consulter les 2 ici : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-SAMPA .
I take it by Muculman you mean Muslim.
In which language are Muslims called Muculman?
(Muçulmán perhaps?)
In which language are Muslims called Muculman?
(Muçulmán perhaps?)
The portuguese name of LUIS is pronunced "Loo-ee-j"
Not "Loo-ee-sh"
J-J-J.
Not "Loo-ee-sh"
J-J-J.