DR Spanish and globalisation

[Marianopolita]

Please see above I just added a paragraph to my response. I still beg to differ.

The thing -that has nothing to do with rules- is that one may sound a bit pretentious when using 'the correct pronounciation'. Specially in languages other than English that is more common around here.

Chiri and I have discussed this: Most times I refrain from pronouncing many 'foreign' words correctly simply because it sounds affected to my ears, even when I know perfectly well the correct pronounciation. A lot of people could be doing the same thing.

An example: I can pronounce the French Rs correctly. However, if I am speaking either Spanish or English and I have to say, Creme Brul?e, for example, I don't use 'french rs' because it makes me sound like Pepe Le Peu.

 

[mariel]

Thanks for the correction Lesley.

I can pronounce the French Rs correctly. However, if I am speaking either Spanish or English and I have to say, Creme Brul?e, for example, I don't use 'french rs' because it makes me sound like Pepe Le Peu.

Isn't that to speak with an accent?

I too sound like Pepe le Pew if i dare to say those french r's.

 

[Chirimoya]

It is absolutely valid to make a distinction about what is correct and what is usage. Neither the Spaniards nor the Dominicans are saying 'Burger King' correctly, but it is interesting to note the different inclinations: the Latin Americans who are strongly influenced by English speaking culture will emulate the (US) English pronunciation, while the Spanish will change it to sound more Spanish. The point I made - and I admit it was garbled - was that global communications will make the English pronunciation universal.

Traditionally, in the UK at least, it is considered affected to emulate the source language pronunciation - 'Don Quixote' is not pronounced the 'correct' way but is 'quick-sote' which sounds absurd to us Spanish speakers. Following this rule it is perfectly all right to say 'creme brulee' without sounding like a second rate Inspector Clouseau.

 

[Porfio_Rubirosa]

Interesting topic.

I note the following:

For "Chevrolet":

Americans: SHEV-row-ley
French: Chey-row-LEY
Dominicans: CHEV-row-ley

Seems to me that this discussion can only be about tendencies and affect, not about rules. There are no steadfast rules.

 

[MrMike]

Interesting topic.

I note the following:

For "Chevrolet":

Americans: SHEV-row-ley
French: Chey-row-LEY
Dominicans: CHEV-row-ley

Seems to me that this discussion can only be about tendencies and affect, not about rules. There are no steadfast rules.

Mexicans: CHEH-bee

 

[Marianopolita]

Porfio_Rubirosa,

How do you know there are no rules? Can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion? I am curious.

In the meantime this is my response to your post:

Your examples tie into my post above about ?las Normas de transcripci?n?. The way a ?foreign? word is pronounced from language to language follows the phonetic rules of transcription. There is definitely a rule. Nothing is accidental. Once again the way a group of people or population pronounces the word may or may not represent the correct phonetic pronunciation. Language skills do come into play. Your example ?Chevrolet? and the way it is pronounced in three Latin alphabetized languages; English, French, Spanish (in particular Dominican Spanish per your example) for each letter in one language, the rule is to find the closest sound in the other language being spoken and people who speak either of the languages mentioned above have the inclination to do this instinctively. According to this reference Manual de Espa?ol Urgente here are some examples:

English [oo] is equivalent to Spanish
English [ee] is equivalent to Spanish [i,y]
English [th] is equivalent to Spanish [z] or depending on where the [th] is in the English word it could be English [th] is equivalent Spanish [d] (as well regional variances in Spanish countries could make the latter vary slightly).

Since you are convinced there are no rules and I recommend this reference Manual de Espa?ol Urgente it is an in depth reference detailing transcription rules (see examples above), pronunciation of ?foreign words? in Spanish and when they should or should not be hispanicized, top?nimos and gentilicios and how they are formed. Once again the way the average population speaks, I refer to foreign words etc. specifically does not always exemplify what is correct.

Please note I am not questioning the pronunciation variations that you sited and I am just always suprised when someone is comfortable saying there are no rules (in a language) when there are rules clearly outlined in many language references.

-Lesley D

Interesting topic.

I note the following:

For "Chevrolet":

Americans: SHEV-row-ley
French: Chey-row-LEY
Dominicans: CHEV-row-ley

Seems to me that this discussion can only be about tendencies and affect, not about rules. There are no steadfast rules.

 

[Marianopolita]

Chirimoya,

Thanks for clarifying your post. To be honest with you parts of what you said had me quite preoccupied.

-Lesley D

It is absolutely valid to make a distinction about what is correct and what is usage. Neither the Spaniards nor the Dominicans are saying 'Burger King' correctly, but it is interesting to note the different inclinations: the Latin Americans who are strongly influenced by English speaking culture will emulate the (US) English pronunciation, while the Spanish will change it to sound more Spanish. The point I made - and I admit it was garbled - was that global communications will make the English pronunciation universal.

Traditionally, in the UK at least, it is considered affected to emulate the source language pronunciation - 'Don Quixote' is not pronounced the 'correct' way but is 'quick-sote' which sounds absurd to us Spanish speakers. Following this rule it is perfectly all right to say 'creme brulee' without sounding like a second rate Inspector Clouseau.

 

[Porfio_Rubirosa]

Porfio_Rubirosa,

How do you know there are no rules? Can you explain how you arrived at that conclusion? I am curious...

Since you are convinced there are no rules and I recommend this reference Manual de Espa?ol Urgente it is an in depth reference detailing transcription rules (see examples above), pronunciation of ?foreign words? in Spanish and when they should or should not be hispanicized, top?nimos and gentilicios and how they are formed. Once again the way the average population speaks, I refer to foreign words etc. specifically does not always exemplify what is correct.

How do you feel about the word "semantics"?

If a "rule" is continually not followed more often than it is, then it stops being a true rule because it has not been popularly adopted. At that point, it becomes a statement of ivory tower principles. That is what I think we are dealing with here.

 

[Marianopolita]

A rule continually not followed by whom? This has nothing to do with semantics either.

It is amazing that you can come to such an unresearched conclusion based on a few examples or observations that you have made. The Spanish language is one of the most diverse in the world from a lexical and pronunciation stand point but rules are standard. I strongly beg to differ and I know that the rules are followed and those who don't follow grammar rules of all kinds are simply unaware that they exist.

For example verbs in Spanish. It is not an option to conjugate them properly. If someone does not conjugate a verb properly it is incorrect based on the rules on how to conjugate verbs and others who choose to follow suit means they are not following the rule either but it does not mean there is no rule in place.

I often hear many verb flaws by Spanish speakers in the USA and the DR. My favorite example is the verb "traer" in the simple past tense. Instead of "traje" I often hear "tra?" which means the speaker is thinking that it is a regular "er" verb that can be conjugated like "comer" i.e "com?". So based on your analogy if people continue to say "tra?" the rule for irregular "er" verbs like "traer" can be overlooked. The way how I see it is the person simply does not know the rule rather than Spanish speakers should start saying this erroneous form.

"Andar" too is one that I often hear in the DR as "and?" instead of "anduve". Mind you it is not a standard but I have heard it....more than once.

-Lesley D

How do you feel about the word "semantics"?

If a "rule" is continually not followed more often than it is, then it stops being a true rule because it has not been popularly adopted. At that point, it becomes a statement of ivory tower principles. That is what I think we are dealing with here.

 

[Chirimoya]

Rules are rules, there is no argument there. But the essence of this discussion is that the dominance of English in global communications will shape the evolution of the Spanish language through usage. The RAE might be on the case, drawing up rules to determine whether we should say 'hambOOrguer', 'hambErguer' or 'hamburguesa' but at the end of the day it is usage that will determine what people are saying.

And? for anduve is common in other places as well. It may end up becoming an accepted variation - through usage.

Journalists are always my best example when they read the news in Spanish and they come across an English word they use English pronunciation which is correct.

I'm quite sensitive to this issue. I've heard newsreaders here saying 'Rooters' for 'Reuters' and 'Notre Dame' with 'dame' pronounced as in 'there is nothing like a dame'. But none of these are English words. I also find it strange hearing a Spanish speaker saying 'Harry Potter' with a strong north American accent - 'Hairy Paaarrr'. Why not just pronounce it phonetically - 'Hari Po-ter' - if you're speaking Spanish?

Then again we don't say 'I'm going to Paree for the weekend' or 'My cousin is working in Moskva', do we?

 

[Marianopolita]

Chiri,

This might sound strange but I have not heard that many bad examples of bad "English" pronunciation by journalists that's why I used the example. Now I'll admit I don't watch English TV at all. So may be I need to diversify to hear how English journalists pronounce foreign words to compare. However, the semi-respectable news stations that I do watch such as TVE, CNN en espanol, HTN and Canal Sur have journalists that are quite respectable.

I think it will be a LONG while before "and?" replaces "anduve".

I am not sure I understand your last point. You mentioned previously in one post that English will eventually prevail because of "global communication". If I am not misunderstanding you I did say that English pronunciation should be retained (for foreign words but not necessarily for names of places because of the "rules" governing, top?nimos). Harry Potter, a proper name should be pronounced the English way by a Spanish speaker. "Paris" because it is the name of place has a Spanish, English and French equivalent, which should be used accordingly.

-Lesley D

PD. I fully understand the "essence of the discussion" and that the dominance of English in global commnications will shape the evolution of the Spanish language but I believe broad generalizations are being made here and no matter how Spanish will be forced to evolve, I believe that certain grammar rules will prevail over the dominance that's why I keep mentioning certain basic principles. Just my point of view.

Rules are rules, there is no argument there. But the essence of this discussion is that the dominance of English in global communications will shape the evolution of the Spanish language through usage. The RAE might be on the case, drawing up rules to determine whether we should say 'hambOOrguer', 'hambErguer' or 'hamburguesa' but at the end of the day it is usage that will determine what people are saying.

And? for anduve is common in other places as well. It may end up becoming an accepted variation - through usage.



I'm quite sensitive to this issue. I've heard newsreaders here saying 'Rooters' for 'Reuters' and 'Notre Dame' with 'dame' pronounced as in 'there is nothing like a dame'. But none of these are English words. I also find it strange hearing a Spanish speaker saying 'Harry Potter' with a strong north American accent - 'Hairy Paaarrr'. Why not just pronounce it phonetically - 'Hari Po-ter' - if you're speaking Spanish?

Then again we don't say 'I'm going to Paree for the weekend' or 'My cousin is working in Moskva', do we?

 

[Chirimoya]

I am not sure I understand your last point. You mentioned previously in one post that English will eventually prevail because of "global communication". If I am not misunderstanding you I did say that English pronunciation should be retained (for foreign words but not necessarilyy for names of places because of the "rules" governing, top?nimos). Harry Potter, a proper name should be pronounced the English way by a Spanish speaker. Paris because it is the name of place has a Spanish, English and French equivalent, which should be used accordingly.

If there was a point, it was to say that although there may be rules in theory, conventions vary when it comes to practice.

You won't find me or many other English speakers saying Don Quick-sote or Sigmund Frood, even though that is what you are apparently supposed to say.

My point about Harry Potter was that his name was not being pronounced the 'English' way but the American way - by a Spanish speaker. I wouldn't question this if it was said by someone speaking American English, but if the person is not speaking English in the first place it sounds very odd to have them transplant this 'Hairy Paarr' into a Spanish sentence: why not just enunciate it clearly according to the phonetics?

Place names in different languages may well phase themselves out, again through usage. It won't change overnight, but it seems to me that these days we just say what the locals say without making up a 'translation' in our language. Look at English names for Italian cities like Venice/Venezia, Florence/Firenze, Leghorn/Livorno. Consider that some cities in Spain have archaic English spellings which are now totally obsolete. Any modern English text dealing with Spain will not say Saragossa or Corunna but Zaragoza and La Coru?a.

At the BBC at least announcers have a pronunciation guide, which is updated every few days, to keep up with unfamiliar place names and people's names that make it on to the news. They do not anglicise foreign names, but render them phonetically so that the English-speaking presenters are able to pronounce them adequately. They still tend to get the stress wrong in Spanish, though. When will they learn that it isn't Conchita MARt'nez!?

 

[Pib]

The gods have spoken and we were all wrong:

Lo correcto es el uso de LES en el caso que somete a nuestra consideraci?n.
D?gaLES no a las drogas.

En espa?ol es frecuente que el esquema de construcci?n del complemento
indirecto, o del complemento directo de persona, que es A + pronombre
personal o sustantivo, concurra en la misma oraci?n con alguna forma
?tona del pronombre (me, te, le, la, lo, nos, os, les, las, los): "A m?
me parece que..." o "A ella la vemos todos los d?as en el colegio".
Si el pronombre t?rmino de la preposici?n A es personal, la presencia
del pronombre ?tono es obligatoria: no podemos decir "Castigaron a m?",
"A ti dieron el premio", sino "Me castigaron a m?", "A ti te dieron el
premio".

Es cierto que podr?a prescindirse del complemento preposicional diciendo, simplemente, "Me castigaron" o "Te dieron el premio", pero
existen diferencias de intenci?n expresiva entre ambas posibilidades.
Las frases "Me castigaron a m?" o "Te dieron el premio a ti" no deben
interpretarse como una simple repetici?n pleon?stica del complemento,
sino que denotan por lo general un prop?sito de contraste,
discriminaci?n, diferencia o exclusi?n t?cita o expresa. Si digo "Me
castigaron a m?" estoy subrayando el hecho de que a sido a m?, y no a
otros tambi?n merecedores o m?s culpables que yo, a quien se ha
castigado.

A veces, la presencia de este doble complemento tiene un
car?cter especificativo cuando el pronombre ?tono no aclara por s? solo
la referencia designativa del complemento. Por ejemplo, en la frase "La
experiencia le ayuda al hombre a no caer dos veces en la misma piedra",
en donde el pronombre LE no aclara por s? solo si nos referimos a una
persona concreta, o, como se?ala el complemento preposicional, al hombre en general. Pero es cierto que, por analog?a con estos casos en que es necesaria la presencia del doble complemento, se ha propagado un empleo redundante de los pronombres ?tonos en concurrencia con el complemento con A, en casos en que la claridad del sentido no lo hace necesario: "Les ofrec? a los invitados un aperitivo". Esta anticipaci?n del complemento por medio del pronombre ?tono, aun siendo innecesaria, no debe considerarse
incorrecta, a menos que se produzca, como a veces ocurre, una falta de
concordancia entre ambos: "?Qu? le das a tus hijos de comer?", en lugar
de "?Qu? les das a tus hijos de comer?".

Reciba un cordial saludo.
----
Departamento de Espa?ol al d?a
RAE

I guess I'll never learn the damn language. :tired:

 

[Marianopolita]

Pib,

How does this prove that we are all wrong:

(Unless you are saying that, that particular phrase was in the RAE too)

Please go back to my analysis I said right from the get go that # 2 which was "les" appears correct from a grammatical point of view. But based on some theories of grammarians they would used # 1 because indirect object pronouns "normally" refer to people + the English singular collective noun concept which I completely disagree with. It does not apply in Spanish. Furthermore, I even said that I would refine my speech and simply say "Diga" no..... "a cualquier cosa que no sea una persona" just to avoid the ambiguity.

What you provided was the basic grammatical rule for indirect object pronouns which governs its usage but please note in the examples from the RAE all the i.d.o. (indirect object pronouns) are all people and not "a las drogas" which is my example. That's why the phrase is interesting to debate because all references that I have consulted (ever) always use "people" as examples as indirect objects.

In my opinion it proves that the grammar rules are what we should ALWAYS go by (I have said this constantly throughout the thread) but from time to time in Spanish one will come across a phrase that will force one to go back to the rules and question if proper grammar in Spanish was applied in a particular case or not.

The point I was trying to make is:

It is an awkward sounding phrase in Spanish that derived from "global communications". A popular English campaign "Say no to drugs" can not be translated literally in Spanish. Out from this we will see more questionable pharses in Spanish. Once again I say "grammar rules" should apply and then "el matiz" must be taken into account so it could sound like a "true Spanish" phrase. I also mentioned this in my first post.

PD. Juancarlos ?please note when you chose # 2, I understood and agreed with you but I wanted to emphasize why others chose # 1. However, as I said I would eliminate the pronoun all together because of ?a las drogas?.

-Lesley D

The gods have spoken and we were all wrong:

I guess I'll never learn the damn language. :tired:

 

[Pib]

I consulted RAE. That is their answer.

No. 2 is not only not incorrect but also conveys a meaning that "Diga no a las drogas" does not. So now it all depends on the intention when using either phrase.

If I read their response correctly, it is similar to saying "Do say no to drugs" in English, but whereas "Do say no to drugs" emphasize the action of saying no, "D?gales no a las drogas" stresses what we are saying no to.

Did I make any sense?

 

[Marianopolita]

Okay- so per the RAE which is correct? . If the grammar rules reign then it s/b with [les] because "a las drogas" is the i.d.o and it's plural. Right? Leaving "nuance" aside.

I personally would eliminate the pronoun when speaking. It's too ambiguous in this phrase. Personal preference that's all. I like [le] and [les] for people not for objects or things.

-Lesley D
-----------------

Pib,

Here's another one that has me wondering when I see the sign:

"Watch your step"-

How would you say that in Spanish?

I consulted RAE. That is their answer.

No. 2 is not only not incorrect but also conveys a meaning that "Diga no a las drogas" does not. So now it all depends on the intention when using either phrase.

 

[Marianopolita]

Pib,

Yes, that makes sense and that's why I would say: "Diga no a las drogas".

The campaign in English is emphasizing the action of saying "no".

So in my opinion the Spanish version should not have [le] or [les].

I consulted RAE. That is their answer.

No. 2 is not only not incorrect but also conveys a meaning that "Diga no a las drogas" does not. So now it all depends on the intention when using either phrase.

If I read their response correctly, it is similar to saying "Do say no to drugs" in English, but whereas "Do say no to drugs" emphasize the action of saying no, "D?gales no a las drogas" stresses what we are saying no to.

Did I make any sense?

 

[Chirimoya]

OK, so we have:

- Campaign slogans borrowed from English like 'diga no a las drogas'. Also advertising slogans.

- Global brand names like 'Burger King': international fast food chains vary in that some adapt their product to the local market, others are rigidly uniform to the extent of maintaining the menu and all information in English. So much so that when I translate the item into Spanish "sabor ajo, por favor" I get corrected by the Dominican server "garlic".

- Local companies using languages other than Spanish: the most jarring manifestation of this has to be the bizarre adoption of the possessive apostrophe, used in a pseudo-French manner: "D'Manolo" or with plurals, in a tropical variation of the famous greengrocer's apostrophe. Many companies and businesses sport English names, as if it makes them more sophisticated than if they had a normal local name.

- Dominican parents naming their children English rather than Spanish names, even when there is a Spanish counterpart. I know several Williams, Richards, Rosemarys (usually spelt Rosemery), as well as a Stephanie and an Alison.

Does anyone have any comments or more examples?

Also, I have a question:
- is all this the effect of global communications or simply an expression of the ongoing cultural relationship this country has with the US?

 

[DMAO]

Chirimoya,
I think it's the mixing of a lot of Eng. and Spa.
Many English words are made into Spanish, rather than translating them.
Like roofo, parqueo, carpeta, and the new one I learned last night at work:
Nursa (Nurse).

 

[Toronto2inDR]

That?s all fine and dandy but tell me one thing?is Sprit (the drink) not Sprit in any language? Why then do I have to say ?Esprit? if I want to be understood?