Osias wrote:A dificuldade em imitar é uma, a dificuldade em fazer a sério são outros quinhentos...Não entendo a dificuldade de imitar um sotaque...
Como assim? Qual que é a diferença entre imitar brincando e imitar fazendo a sério?
Moderator: Forum Administrators
Osias wrote:A dificuldade em imitar é uma, a dificuldade em fazer a sério são outros quinhentos...Não entendo a dificuldade de imitar um sotaque...
Vlürch wrote:vijayjohn wrote:I guess. Maybe it has something to do with the way symbols in Indian writing systems tend to be organized, by place of articulation from back to front and by manner of articulation in this order: voiceless unaspirated, voiceless aspirated, voiced unaspirated, voiced aspirated, nasal. Tamil script, however, did away with all the Indo-Aryan nonsense, so it just has voiceless unaspirated plosive followed by nasal for each POA.
It's always interesting to learn how different writing systems are ordered, even if I'll forget within an hour.![]()
Ciarán12 wrote:Osias wrote:A dificuldade em imitar é uma, a dificuldade em fazer a sério são outros quinhentos...Não entendo a dificuldade de imitar um sotaque...
Como assim? Qual que é a diferença entre imitar brincando e imitar fazendo a sério?
Osias wrote:Bom, posso estar errado mas geralmente quando se fala em 'imitar' um sotaque está se falando em uma imitação cômica, como alguém imitando Donald Trump por exemplo (making an impression of Trump). Nó caso do Trump só uma pessoa faz ele a sério, que é ele mesmo.
Se eu 'imitar' um sotaque americano numa reunião polícia séria, eu acho que ninguém vai dizer que foi uma 'imitação', mas que eu 'fiz' um sotaque americano.
Osias wrote:Mas eu li um blogueiro uma vez dizer que o segredo pra aprender uma língua era ir imitando o sotaque (comicamente) 24 horas por dia até perder a graça e você sem perceber estar fazendo o sotaque a sério.
vijayjohn wrote:I did just a little bit of job hunting recently and tried to apply for a few jobs for teaching English in China. Then all of a sudden, I got five six e-mails (and counting) in my inbox, which I'm honestly kind of scared to respond to just because I'm shocked. I kind of knew English teachers were in high demand in China, but I didn't know the demand was that high.
Hopefully it's not some kind of hoax.
Ο Έλληνας που ανακάλυψε πως μπορούν να αναπνέουν στον Άρη
Ο Έλληνας που ανακάλυψε πώς μπορούν να αναπνέουν στον Άρη
Ciarán12 wrote:I wonder where this comes from. Presumably this was a sound shift which didn't affect all dialects, and then the alternative forms were both adopted into the mainstream separately...?
linguoboy wrote:Ciarán12 wrote:I wonder where this comes from. Presumably this was a sound shift which didn't affect all dialects, and then the alternative forms were both adopted into the mainstream separately...?
I remember years ago being puzzled by Sp. Duero vs Pt. Douro, especially once I discovered the Latin etymon is Durius. It could be folk etymology at work (i.e. as if from de + ouro) but given the other examples, I think it might be an instance of a broader phenomenon. Perhaps a form of progressive assimilation that only affected part of the lexicon?
(Not for the first time I regret buying that book on the historical phonology of Portuguese I saw for sale in a local used bookstore.)
Ciarán12 wrote:There's a phenomenon in Brazilian Portuguese dialects at least whereby an /i/ or /j/-off-glide appears in speech before /z/: e.g. "faz" is pronounced as if spelled "faiz", "fez" as if spelled "feiz". There's also the pronunciation of "mas" as "mais". Is that due to the following consonant being articulated in the front of the mouth? If so, would that explain what is going on with the others above? (sorry if that's what you meant by "progressive assimilation", I wasn't sure exactly what that means).
linguoboy wrote:Now elsewhere in Romance (and to some extent in Portuguese as well), there follows an elision of this offglide, i.e. /kowza/ > /koza/. But what if the pressure to keep /ow/ and /o/ from falling together leads to dissimilation? That is, what if /ow/ becomes /oj/ in order to increase its distinctiveness from /o/? This would explain examples like cousa > coisa, but not the reverse, like *Duiru(m) > *Doiro > Douro.
Ciarán12 wrote:It seems the versions with <ou> in most cases seem to be the more archaic ones.
linguoboy wrote:(Not for the first time I regret buying that book on the historical phonology of Portuguese I saw for sale in a local used bookstore.)
Prowler wrote:A Swede told me recently that NO/SW/DA are all the same language and just a bunch of different dialects of the same language. And told me that if Swedes truly wanted it they'd be able to understand Danish without any issue either.
"Swedish was a mistake. It's a language that solely exists to be spoken in the period from 1890 to 1925." he says. I wonder how many people share his sentiment. Then again he's kinda against the idea of nation states, so that might play into it...
Johanna wrote:Prowler wrote:A Swede told me recently that NO/SW/DA are all the same language and just a bunch of different dialects of the same language. And told me that if Swedes truly wanted it they'd be able to understand Danish without any issue either.
"Swedish was a mistake. It's a language that solely exists to be spoken in the period from 1890 to 1925." he says. I wonder how many people share his sentiment. Then again he's kinda against the idea of nation states, so that might play into it...
The sentiment that they're not really separate languages is pretty common, but the part about Swedish being a mistake and only truly spoken for a short time in the late 18th and early 20th centuries is pretty much unheard of. Yikes!
Return to “General Language Forum”
Users browsing this forum: razlem and 1 guest