I must say, I have seen many many times a lack of interest to even attempt to pronounce of even write a name properly. One example which comes to my mind is Ghandi instead of Gandhi.
I must say, I have seen many many times a lack of interest to even attempt to pronounce of even write a name properly. One example which comes to my mind is Ghandi instead of Gandhi.
If I were trying to say the word 'Volkswagen' to a German speaking person, I would do my best to pronounce it in a way they would understand. As most of the time I ever say the word 'Volkswagen' out loud it's to my fellow English speakers, pronouncing it in the expected English way seems way less pretentious and way more effective.
Or you could help do your part in normalizing pronouncing things correctly instead of perpetuating the perception that it's somehow "pretentious".
Expecting non-German people to speak with German pronunciation is plain arrogant.
Also, no, English is not very reliable when it comes to spelling vs. pronunciation.
(Former diction teacher, here.)
Also, Vs are actually pretty consistent in English. Can't even think of a word with a V where the V doesn't sound like a V.
V is actually the only letter in English that is never silent.
Most other letters also have various possible renderings into pronunciation, especially the vowels—"i" for instance can end up being at least 5 different vowel sounds and also some consonant sounds.
So yes. As I pointed out, English is extremely irregular orthographically, in stark contrast to languages like German, French, or Italian, all of which have extremely reliable and simple pronunciation rules.
Otherwise you just cause confusion. The adapted names have their own history.
If you insist on saying København and not Copenhagen, you get to have a little pretentious discussion explaining what you meant to every person you talk to. Ditto for Folks-vagen.
Here's how I read this. "We as an English speaking group will continue to not make an attempt to pronounce it right even if we can. Once we don't we will have a common pronunciation that doesn't fit the original one. Once it becomes common, we will get offended if it is not pronounced in the common way that we as a group chose to actively ignore in the first place. If the original speakers insist, we will call them pretentious."
Way to overreach way beyond what I originally said. If I was speaking to someone I knew was Dutch, of course I would (try to) say "København." Then they'd probably laugh at me and we'd agree to call it Copenhagen. :P
Or if I want to read your view in the worst possible way-- similar to how you've read mine-- "People who use the established pronunciation of a loanword or place in their native tongue are wrong. We should always seek to find where we are using words of foreign origin and correct them to be perfectly pronounced in their original tongue, even when this causes confusion and isn't helpful to people from the original place. Japanese gairaigo should be abolished and they should just say those words in the correct original English (or German or French). And those damn Frenchmen should stop calling the place I live Californie dans les Etats Unis, which is nothing like how I say it, and should stop calling me 'Michel' which sounds a whole lot like the female version of my name"
1.0 (me) : "It is respectful to attempt pronunciation if possible".
1.1 (you) : "There is a common English pronunciation. It's pretentious if you don't use the common pronunciation. Show respect to the English speaker!"
1.2 (me) : "The common pronunciation exists because of the lack of attempt in the first place. It's not pretentious. "
1.3 (you) : "It is established, we should use common pronunciation"
You turned the initial conversation about making an attempt to be kind and respectful towards non-English speakers into something else. Almost feels like victim blaming to me. Once again, to be clear - we should make an attempt. Just because there's an established pronunciation (or spelling) doesn't mean it is right. Overtime, established pronunciation can move towards the original pronunciation. The right pronunciation is what the speaker wants to have. You, me or the English society don't have any say in it. It doesn't matter if it is established or not. Going the extra mile in kindness helps; calling others pretentious because they ask you to empathise doesn't.
> you show respect by using that pronunciation when speaking TO NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS.
or
> If I was speaking to someone I knew was Dutch, of course I would (try to) say "København."
Because what you're accusing me of-- and the words you're putting in my mouth "There is a common English pronunciation. It's pretentious if you don't use the common pronunciation. Show respect to the English speaker!"-- make no sense in that context.
German is full of exonyms. All languages are full of exonyms and weird pronunciations of foreign words. It is OK.
This is really pretty sad on my part. I was just in Copenhagen for 3 weeks a year ago, just before COVID. :P
In many cases, it is unnecessary and only makes the speaker look foolish.
"Hyundai" is pronounces its own brand name differently in American and Korean TV commercials. Is Hyundai being disrespectful to Koreans?
The goal is to communicate. Making communication more difficult is the opposite of the goal.
Comedic skits touch on this [1][2] and though a caricature, I think they capture the gist of how it's perceived when attempted.
I think it stems from a desire for "cultural wokeness" which is a good thing and has its place, but as you say when communication is the goal, speak the language of the receiver.
Approximating it, because you can't pronounce it is one thing. Not giving a shit, even though you do have the same word (i.e. folk) is another one.
But for a brand definitely not. It's the job of the brand creators to make sure that the name can be read and pronounced in the various target markets.
There are many languages around the world and it is impossible to remember every nuance of how to pronounce things. Ghandi is common pronounciation even in Germany. The Japanese might pronounce it something else.
I don't think it is an unreasonable expectation to write the word "Gandhi" as "Gandhi". That's how he wrote the name, that's how he signed it and that's the actual spelling. I can understand the difficulty in pronunciation but getting the name right while typing it out is unforgivable in this century.
Also, learning to forgive is a rare virtue these days. Entitlement and expection creates conflict. Learn to forgive others and you'll have a better time with everyone else. No one who even spells it as Ghandi means any malice or offense. So, it is a matter of technicality. Let go.