PRONUNCIATION OF FOREIGN NAMES

New Zealand Listener, Volume 30, Issue 764, 12 March 1954, Page 5

PRONUNCIATION OF FOREIGN NAMES

Sir-I should like to thank "Grinij or Greenwich" for his genial and amusing letter. I think he and I have something in common. But, if I rightly interpret his notation, I can claim that my "ears" are quite as sensitive and accurate as his (it occurs to me that he may be misled by my writing of er for the "obscure" vowel, for which he uses a). I am not acquainted with Te Awamutu usage; but here in Auckland I have continually -heard, from childhood onward, "Moter Hee,’ and nothing else, for "Moh-too-ee-hay" (the best I can do without a phonetic alphabet, but the vowels are all short), and repeatedly, for at least 30 years, "Teeker Wotter," and nothing else, for "Tay Kah-oo-fah-tah" (the vowels, again, all short). Our pretty kowhai tree is here usually "ko-eye," but the compound Wai-kowhai is usually "Wyker-wy." I have not heard "Tahtongah" for Tauranga (the commonest Auckland mispronunciation is "T’ronger"), but I have heard "Mahnoo" for Maunu. As for Papeete, I have repeatedly heard "Pappeat" (rhyming with meat) both here and in Wellington, and, as it happens, have heard nothing else (incidentally, as the name is a compound of pape and ete, I am slightly puzzled by "Grinij’s" three syllables’). Nor do I understand his "Gee-te" for Goethe; can it be a misprint? As I am English by birth and in part ‘by education, and in my time have taught English for 46 years, I can fairly claim some knowledge of the vagaries of English names. "Grinij," of course, knows as well as I do that the spoken forms have been abraded through centuries of use by mostly unlettered people, while a succession of written documents have preserved more or less archaic spellings (many of them indefensible from a practical point of view). The traditional pronunciation of the better-known names has survived (thus the surnames Gloster, Lester, Wooster show the normal pronunciation of Gloucester, Leicester and Worcester; but more often the traditional forms (which "Grinij" unkindly calls "nicknames"’) of place-names have remained purely local, and those of personal names mainly "aristocratic," while outsiders have had no guide except the conventional spelling. The results are varied, and sometimes curious, Thus "South-wawk" seems now to be accepted beside "Suth’k" (Southwark); "Pontefract" is general except in "Pumfrit" itself; "Syren-sester" appears to be displacing the older "Sissister" even in Cirencester, though the country people keep to the still older "Sizziter"; perhaps "Grinij" would join the American visitors in saying "Durby" instead of "Darby," or "Waw-wick" for Warwick; even here in New Zealand we have _ at least one instance of spelling-pronun-ciation in Majoribanks (a misspelling, by the way) as the name of a Wellington street: it is more often called "Major Banks" or "Marjorie Banks" or "M’jorty Banks" than the traditional "Marchbanks." Even in ordinary words a multitude of minor variations are accepted, or tolerated, in "good" speech: in "Grinij’s" list, two pronunciations are "accepted" for apparent, or inherent, or obscenity: for curious, "kyooerius" is approved, but "kyoer-" or "kyaw-er" or "kyawr-" or "kyer-" is not condemned. From "Grinij’s" second group I take learn as typical; the pronunciation he represents as "lurn" is Standard, though

some dialect-speakers say "lahn" (so did the first Queen Elizabeth), some "lairrn," some probably "lurrn." It is a notorious fact of languagehistory that the "popular or common" pronunciation, or idiom, generally prevails in the end, simply because people who know better must, sooner or later, conform if they wish to be understood: thus, if I had to ask my way to Te Kauwhata, I should certainly, however unwillingly, say "Teeker ‘Wotter." I leave it to "Grinij’" to consider what mispronunciations were responsible, until recently, for the writing of Pahautanui for Pauatahanui, and of Kaiwarra for Kaiwharawhara. But I am sure he shares my regret that we New Zealanders so often distort the Maori names of our own country. Maori spelling, unlike ours, is completely straightforward, and the essentials of the pronunciation can be "lurnt" in ten minutes by any man of good will. I hope, too, that he supports my claim that our announcers should give us (as the BBC gives British listeners) something better than the "Honular or common" diction.

P. S.

ARDERN

Auckland)

Sir,-After reading Elwynne Thomas’s letter I decided to read again Bodmer’s discussion of the international language problem in The Loom of Language. I am impressed by Bodmer’s knowledge and insight, but find it surprising that he does not pay more attention to the human factor, particularly since his own conclusions, despite his learned linguistic analysis, seem largely influenced by this. He criticises Zamenhoff for pandering to other nations by including roots which are not truly-international, but fails to see that it was this realism which did so much to give’ Esperanto its wide appeal. Your correspondent wil! find here an’ explanation for the fact that Interglossa has already become a museum piece. Something more than linguistic perfection is required to establish an international language. We cannot wait for the perfect language, especially in view of the wide range of opinion about perfection. In Esperanto we have something which, for international usage, is immeasurably superior to any national tongue and which has already been widely accepted. By the test of survival it is the best that has been offered and practical people will be well advised to use it and leave the theorists to dispute about improvements.

C. J.

ADCOCK

(Wellington),