Actually, Chuck Norris has admitted to being flattered by them. =P
D. Bq.:
It's pretty obvious that you know how to read and write in English, but can you speak it? If you can, would you consider yourself fluent in it? (apologies if this was answered before)
MrR: Unlike the person who asked me yesterday the same question, you probably already realized, that knowing a foreign language grammar and vocabulary and being able to apply it into daily use in a textual media is far different from speaking it aloud. If one's tongue is not used to making those phonemes, it will definitely sound like that. Rhythm and intonation also takes time to learn.
Voice samples by me speaking English, Finnish and Japanese, can be found on the previous page.
Comparison of the lists of phonemes used in Finnish, English and Japanese (in IPA, source: Wikipedia):
Vowels:
-.Finnish.:.a.ɑ.....e...i...o...u...y.æ.ø
-.Japanese:.a.......e...i...o...ɯ
-.English.:.a.ɑ.ʌ.ɒ.e.ɛ.i.ɪ.o.ɔ.u.ʊ...æ...ɜ.ɚ.ə
Consonants:
-.Finnish.:.m.n.ŋ.p.b.t.d.k.g.f.ʋ.....s...ʃ.........h...l.j.r
-.Japanese:.m.n.ŋ.p.b.t.d.k.ɡ.ɸ.......s.z.ʃ.tʃ.ʒ.dʒ.h.ɰ...j.ɺ̠
-.English.:.m.n.ŋ.p.b.t.d.k.ɡ.f.v.θ.ð.s.z.ʃ.tʃ.ʒ.dʒ.h.w.l.j.ɹ
Diphthongs are not listed (I broke them apart and listed their individual vowel components instead), because I don't consider them relevant. Similarly, vowel length markers (ː) were removed.
Phonemes listed in orange color only occur in foreign loan words.
Note: Period characters do not indicate phonemes. I inserted them to ensure spacing. For some reason, Firefox/phpBB does not let me post nbsp characters, and
does not allow me to enlarge the text.
As you can see, English (and Japanese) contain many sounds that are quite foreign (or impossible to distinguish) to a Finnish speaker. It takes a lot of practise to get them right and natural. Japanese being a little bit easier than English.
(In comparison, learning Finnish pronounciation should be easy for an English speaker because of the lesser number of phonemes. In practise, that assumption fails, because English speakers tend to think in terms of diphthongs, so when try to read "ee" /eː/, they produce what sounds more like "ii" (/iː/) or "ei" (/ei/), for example. And there's the consonant aspiration thing as well. English reader's "kit" sounds like "khit" to a Finnish person. It seems to be very difficult to eliminate the aspiration if that's how you've learned to do since childhood.
For Japanese speakers, the biggest hurdle seems to be that they're taught in the syllabylary. Consonant clusters, or words ending in a consonant, magically get that "i" or "u" in them, and it is really noticeable to non-Japanese people.)
Sorry, I don't speak Chinese.
(Hint: Do specify encoding. Yes, I intentionally got it wrong. No, I don't need someone to explain to me what it should have been. Determining which encoding I interpreted it as, is left as an exercise to the reader.)
I realize this is pretty nonspecific, but what things do you find funny? For example..TV shows, websites, stuff like that.
Aside from normal humor, I find some things funny that most people don't find funny, and vice versa.
It's quite hard to specify.
I like amusing things, irony, etc.
I don't like most jokes that put someone/a group into weird light, such as blonde/negro jokes or Chuck Norris jokes. As an exception, I do like some lightbulb jokes, such as this one about lojbanists:
Q: How many Lojbanists does it take to change a broken light bulb?
A: Two: one to decide what to change it into, and one to figure out what kind of bulb emits broken light.
I guess a lot of TASVideos members are like that, including me.
Bisqwit wrote:
okaygo wrote:
䑥慲⁂楳煷楴Ⱐ坨慴⁰牯杲慭浩湧慮杵慧敳牥⁹潵潯搠慴㼠坨楣栠慲攠祯畲慶潲楴敳?
Sorry, I don't speak Chinese.
I see. Our favorite joke is to take lame "jokes" and make them lamer. It's some kind of fad.
As if I didn't know that already. :|
MrR: Unlike the person who asked me yesterday the same question, you probably already realized, that knowing a foreign language grammar and vocabulary and being able to apply it into daily use in a textual media is far different from speaking it aloud. If one's tongue is not used to making those phonemes, it will definitely sound like that. Rhythm and intonation also takes time to learn.
Voice samples by me speaking English, Finnish and Japanese, can be found on the previous page.
Comparison of the lists of phonemes used in Finnish, English and Japanese (in IPA, source: Wikipedia):
Vowels:
-.Finnish.:.a.ɑ.....e.....i...o...u...y.æ.ø
-.Japanese:.a.......e.....i...o...ɯ
-.English.:.a.ɑ.ʌ.ɒ.e.ɛ.ɜ.i.ɪ.o.ɔ.u.ʊ...æ...ɚ.ə
Consonants:
-.Finnish.:.m.n.ŋ.p.b.t.d.k.g.f.ʋ.....s...ʃ.........h...l.j.r
-.Japanese:.m.n.ŋ.p.b.t.d.k.ɡ.ɸ.......s.z.ʃ.tʃ.ʒ.dʒ.h.ɰ...j.ɺ̠
-.English.:.m.n.ŋ.p.b.t.d.k.ɡ.f.v.θ.ð.s.z.ʃ.tʃ.ʒ.dʒ.h.w.l.j.ɹ
Diphthongs are not listed (I broke them apart and listed their individual vowel components instead), because I don't consider them relevant. Similarly, vowel length markers (ː) were removed.
Phonemes listed in orange color only occur in foreign loan words.
Note: Period characters do not indicate phonemes. I inserted them to ensure spacing. For some reason, Firefox/phpBB does not let me post nbsp characters, and
does not allow me to enlarge the text.
As you can see, English (and Japanese) contain many sounds that are quite foreign (or impossible to distinguish) to a Finnish speaker. It takes a lot of practise to get them right and natural. Japanese being a little bit easier than English.
(In comparison, learning Finnish pronounciation should be easy for an English speaker because of the lesser number of phonemes. In practise, that assumption fails, because English speakers tend to think in terms of diphthongs, so when try to read "ee" /eː/, they produce what sounds more like "ii" (/iː/) or "ei" (/ei/), for example. And there's the consonant aspiration thing as well. English reader's "kit" sounds like "khit" to a Finnish person. It seems to be very difficult to eliminate the aspiration if that's how you've learned to do since childhood.
For Japanese speakers, the biggest hurdle seems to be that they're taught in the syllabylary. Consonant clusters, or words ending in a consonant, magically get that "i" or "u" in them, and it is really noticeable to non-Japanese people.)
This was very informational; thank you. Another interesting thing are accents, and what/how much of it constitute "fluent" English. For example, your voice and mine sound quite different, but I can't think of any criteria to determine which is more "fluent" or perfect, or whether they are both equally linguistically accurate.
This was very informational; thank you. Another interesting thing are accents, and what/how much of it constitute "fluent" English. For example, your voice and mine sound quite different, but I can't think of any criteria to determine which is more "fluent" or perfect, or whether they are both equally linguistically accurate.
Yeah, that would be the intonation and stress thing I mentioned :)
But I'm not out the woods about phonemes yet either. Chances are that I pronounce all of /e/, /ɛ/ and /ɜ/ as /e/, and all of /a/, /ɑ/, /ʌ/ and /ɒ/ as /a/, for example.
A Finn perceives the difference between the words "bit" and "beat" solely to be of a vowel-length nature, and even though I consciously know that's not true ― they have a different phoneme alltogether (/bɪt/ vs /biːt/) ― I am still likely to produce the same phoneme in both cases, just with different lengths (/bit/, /biːt/). Similarly for "doc" (/dɒk/) vs "dark" (/dɑːk/); I'll just pronounce one as /dak/ and the other as /daːk/.* It is very difficult for me to hear, let alone produce a distinction between those phonemes.
*) Bad example. I'd pronounce "doc" as /dok/ (with the same "o" as Australians have in "point"), not /dak/, unless I want to imitate (and exaggerate) American pronounciation :)
(In comparison, learning Finnish pronounciation should be easy for an English speaker because of the lesser number of phonemes. In practise, that assumption fails, because English speakers tend to think in terms of diphthongs, so when try to read "ee" /eː/, they produce what sounds more like "ii" (/iː/) or "ei" (/ei/), for example.
One problem, at least to American English speakers, is that they don't understand the concept of long vowels. Basically the concept of the long vowel sound (as it exists in Finnish and many other languages) is inexistent in American English, in a very similar way than the distinction between the 'r' and 'l' sounds is inexistent in Japanese and Chinese. (This is also the reason why Japanese transliteration to English usually (and incorrectly) converts long vowels into short ones: Because Americans don't understand the difference.)
The Finnish language relies a lot on the distinction between vowel lengths. Completely different and unrelated words may differ only in vowel length (eg. "tuli", fire, and "tuuli", wind). Many American English speakers have difficult time in distinguishing between them (both when they hear the words spoken and when they try to speak them).
Another problematic case for American English (and sometimes other English dialects) speakers is the strong 'r' sound used in Finnish and other languages (such as Spanish). There's no such sound in English. Depending on the dialect, there may be a really short and soft 'r' sound, or it may lack completely. The 'r' sound in particular is problematic for people because if they don't learn to pronounce it from early childhood, it's very difficult to learn it later (as we all know from Chinese and Japanese people). There just is something about that sound that it has to be learned in early childhood.
A Finn perceives the difference between the words "bit" and "beat" solely to be of a vowel-length nature,
i don't think there's any other difference there, at least if we talk about the american english, which is the only one that matters, because it sounds best and more people speak that. they should teach that in schools instead of the weird english.
the way english is written should be updated though. there are so many unnecessary letters in words. for example in the word "before", you could reduce it to "b4". the th sound could be replaced with a new letter so you don't have to write two letters every time. etc.
Warp wrote:
Completely different and unrelated words may differ only in vowel length (eg. "tuli", fire, and "tuuli", wind). Many American English speakers have difficult time in distinguishing between them (both when they hear the words spoken and when they try to speak them).
it's easy. when there's one u you pronounce it like the u in the word pronounce and when there's two u's, you pronounce it like the oo in the word moon.
but look at the english language, it's even crazier, because there's completely unrelated words that are pronounced exactly the same, like the words wood and would.
A Finn perceives the difference between the words "bit" and "beat" solely to be of a vowel-length nature,
i don't think there's any other difference there
You're Swedish, so you have a similar perspective as Finns do.
But it is wrong.
nfq wrote:
the way english is written should be updated though. there are so many unnecessary letters in words. for example in the word "before", you could reduce it to "b4". the th sound could be replaced with a new letter so you don't have to write two letters every time. etc.
it's easy. when there's one u you pronounce it like the u in the word pronounce and when there's two u's, you pronounce it like the oo in the word moon.
That doesn't quite cover it.
Because the "u" in "pronounce" is part of a diphthong /aʊ/ and the "oo" in "moon" is the phoneme /uː/. You won't find the /ʊ/ phoneme separately in English. Furthermore, the "oo" in "moon" can be pronounced shortly or longly. It's similar to the word "foot". How often do you hear people pronouncing "football" with a long vowel? Yet, "foot" is pronounced sometimes with a long vowel. (The "oo" in "foot" and "moon" are pronounced with a different vowel by the way.) In English it is the type of the phoneme that matters, not its length. In Swedish, Finnish, Estonian, Japanese, and many other languages, it's the opposite.
Dear Bisqwit,
Why did okaygo post binary numbers in his post? Did it have something to do with the "Sorry, I don't speak Chinese" response?
He posted a question encoded in binary code relying on the fact that I can decode it. I intentionally misdecoded it (since it was already "properly" decoded by someone else).
You're Swedish, so you have a similar perspective as Finns do.
i have always lived in sweden, but i'm more finnish than swedish because i speak finnish better than swedish, i have finnish parents and a finnish name
I disagree with everything nfq said in his last post containing content.
Bisqwit:
I can see that you're quite interested in languages and linguistics, and I thought it was quite amusing that nate (Nathan Jahnke of M2K2/SDA) also is. What do you think about that? :)
I can see that you're quite interested in languages and linguistics, and I thought it was quite amusing that nate (Nathan Jahnke of M2K2/SDA) also is. What do you think about that? :)
That is a funny coincidence.
(Also, the first time I see his real name written.)
okaygo wrote:
favourite Pokémon?
Difficult to say. I used to have one or two, but I have forgot.
If I had to pick one, I'd say Charmander or Ditto.
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
Dear Bisqwit,
Are there any questions you frequently ask yourself (or any specific kind of questions)? Are there any questions to which you don't know the answer, but one day hope to find out?
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
...and assuming it is not a continuation? (which was my original intent)
Well, there are plenty of questions I'd like to have an answer for.
Most are scientific of nature.
Such as
-- Assuming teleportation is devised some time in the future, can a live human body be cloned (as an identical copy, with memories and all) without ill consequences?
-- Which specific part(s) of human consciousness are not generated by the brain (and the rest of the biological body)?
-- If a time machine is devised some time in the future, can it be used to change the history? Can it be used to change the future? Are there parallel universes?
-- How were the pyramids built, really? Why are there pyramids in South America as well?
-- Will interstellar travel be devised before the current human civilization expires / exhausts its resources?
Spent 10 minutes thinking more, that's it for now.
...and assuming it is not a continuation? (which was my original intent)
Well, there are plenty of questions I'd like to have an answer for.
Most are scientific of nature.
Such as
-- Assuming teleportation is devised some time in the future, can a live human body be cloned (as an identical copy, with memories and all) without ill consequences?
-- If a time machine is devised some time in the future, can it be used to change the history? Can it be used to change the future? Are there parallel universes?
-- Will interstellar travel be devised before the current human civilization expires / exhausts its resources?
So far scientists have managed to teleport light and are currently working on trying to teleport small objects, I wouldn't trust it because teleportation requires the subject to be melted and recreated. As for cloning, technically its already been done. Although not with all the same experiences intact. I doubt it could ever happen without side effects.
As Einstein pointed out getting into the past isn't the main problem, its getting back again, as getting back into the future requires exceeding the speed of light. I think its realistically possible for humans to experience things in slow motion and react instinctivley to them as well greatly speed things up.
Interstellar travel is rather pointless IMHO given the hugely cosmic distances and time it would take to reach destinations. In the short term expect it to be possible to go into space, at least orbiting the earth. By the middle of the century it should also be possible to go to the moon, but there is plenty of things that scare the shit out of me about going there, such as micro metorites and solar flare, such things our lovely atmosphere protects us from. So expect high insurance costs. Also resources on earth don't tecnically expire only take millions of years to naturally restore. Which given the human clock is too long.
-- How were the pyramids built, really? Why are there pyramids in South America as well?
Basically through slopes. According to the quite reputable physorg.com:
During excavation, massive dolerite "pounders" were used to pulverize the stone around the edge of the granite block that needed to be extracted. According to Redford, 60 to 70 men would pound out the stone. At the bottom, they rammed wooden pegs into slots they had cut, and filled the slots with water. The pegs would expand, splitting the stone, and the block was then slid down onto a waiting boat.
Teams of oxen or manpower were used to drag the stones on a prepared slipway that was lubricated with oil. Said Redford, a scene from a 19th century B.C. tomb in Middle Egypt depicts "an alabaster statue 20 feet high pulled by 173 men on four ropes with a man lubricating the slipway as the pulling went on."
Once the stones were at the construction site, ramps were built to get them into place on the pyramid, said Redford. These ramps were made of mud brick and coated with chips of plaster to harden the surface. "If they consistently raised the ramp course by course as the teams dragged their blocks up, they could have gotten them into place fairly easily," he noted. At least one such ramp still exists, he said.
As for South American pyramids, I assume you mean Central American (ie, the Aztecs and Mayans), as South America isn't as well known for it's surviving pyramids. Many Central American pyramids were built as tombs for rules (like Egypt), and many others were built for religious and ceremonial purposes. What architectural similarity between the Egyptian and American pyramids there is is coincidental; all they really share in common is a basic shape (and not even that: generally, American pyramids have flat tops).
Hope this answered something.
