DR Spanish and globalisation

[Porfio_Rubirosa]

Originally Posted by Lesley D

Our professor asked us which phrase is correct:

-this is a popular ad seen almost everywhere:

1) Dígale no a las drogas

2) Dígales no a las drogas
-Lesley D
-I am sure I will be back.

I never knew there was a difference. Where I learned to speak Spanish (Barahona), both phrases would be pronounced in the exact same way ("Digale no a la droga"), with the actual meaning to be derived from context.

[Bugsey34]

In terms of this phrase, I think Lesley is right that no indirect object is required at all. If the you cannot answer the question "Say no to who?", it does not call for the use of an indirect object. Grammatically it should be "Diga no a las drogas" o "Di no a las drogas".

In terms of the globalization of Spanish, every language has gone through periods of change based on what is happening culturally at the time, this just happens to be a period of change for Spanish. But these changes are happening all the time all over the world for various reasons. It's up to the RAE to stand for traditional Castellano and make sure it thrives, most of which is happening only in Spain anyway. But by my comments above, I mean that it's not really a horrible thing anyway. If language was some static thing that only played by the rules, it wouldn't be any fun then would it?

[Lesley D]

Porfio_Rubirosa,

The difference is not in the meaning, the analysis has to do with the grammatical rules that must be taken into account. However, I will tell you why the phrases are the same pronunciation wise for some speakers. Once again it's an example of how Caribbean Spanish is defective from a phonetic standpoint and to the point where it interferes with the formation of a proper grammatical phrase. As we all know it is characteristic of some speakers of Caribbean Spanish to drop the final [s]. Therefore, Dígales no a las drogas is pronounced by some as Dígale[s] no a las drogas. However, if you follow the grammatical rules these two phrases are not the same.


-Lesley D

Originally Posted by Porfio_Rubirosa

I never knew there was a difference. Where I learned to speak Spanish (Barahona), both phrases would be pronounced in the exact same way ("Digale no a la droga"), with the actual meaning to be derived from context.

[juancarlos]

Very interesting, Lesley. It simply shows that, sometimes, things are not as simple as they appear. You are right about the grammatical rules, however I had some doubts because drugs are not people and it sounds kind of odd. Still, I decided to go with the rules, but Diga no a las drogas sounds better to me, as another poster mentioned.

[Hillbilly]

I would be much more concerned with phonetic variations imposed by massive publicity.
One such case-to me at least-is super evident. VERIZON

In Spanish, this should be seen and pronounced: ver EEE zon, or ver eee ZON.

Nevertheless, the radio and television ads follow the English pronunciation and we get: Ver AY zon.

The phonetic conflict is that Spanish speakers are looking at what should be an EEE sound and saying AY.

That is what I would call "contamination."

Just 2¢ from

HB

[bcmike]

Originally Posted by Hillbilly

I would be much more concerned with phonetic variations imposed by massive publicity.
One such case-to me at least-is super evident. VERIZON

In Spanish, this should be seen and pronounced: ver EEE zon, or ver eee ZON.

Nevertheless, the radio and television ads follow the English pronunciation and we get: Ver AY zon.

The phonetic conflict is that Spanish speakers are looking at what should be an EEE sound and saying AY.

That is what I would call "contamination."

Just 2¢ from

HB

Except that Verizon is a proper name. so it must be pronounced as such.

[Lesley D]

Hillbilly,

Although language evolves the rules of grammar never change. What you suggested is a huge faux-pas according to the Spanish rules that govern the following: 1) pronunciation of names of places in Spanish (topónimos), 2) foreign proper names 3) phonetic transcription (normas de transcripción) from one language to another.

According to Spanish grammar rules most names of places from English to Spanish have phonetic transcription and the reason why is because both languages use Latin alphabetization. Therefore it’s possible to find close phonetic equivalents. There are exceptions to this rule. However, using your example Verizon, the English pronunciation should be retained in Spanish according to the rules that govern the pronunciation of foreign proper names.

Example of “topónimos” from English to Spanish:

Jerusalem = Jerusalén
Japan= Japón
Jamaica= Jamaica (with Spanish phonetics)

Proper names like “Verizon” retain the pronunciation of the “source language”.

Reference: Manual de Espanol Urgente.

-Lesley D

Originally Posted by Hillbilly

I would be much more concerned with phonetic variations imposed by massive publicity.
One such case-to me at least-is super evident. VERIZON

In Spanish, this should be seen and pronounced: ver EEE zon, or ver eee ZON.

Nevertheless, the radio and television ads follow the English pronunciation and we get: Ver AY zon.

The phonetic conflict is that Spanish speakers are looking at what should be an EEE sound and saying AY.

That is what I would call "contamination."

Just 2¢ from

HB

[Chirimoya]

It's not so rigid in my experience. Place names are not the best analogy because the Spanish 'topónimo' could be as much from the source language as it is from English.

Verizon is a brand name, and in the commercial world these rules are quite flexible. Off the top of my head, let's take 'Burger King': in Spain it's pronounced phonetically more or less according to Spanish rules: Voorgerr Keeng. Dominicans (and I am guessing all Latin Americans) say Verger Keeng, following the English pronunciation rather than the Spanish.

There are other examples like this, which indicate that it is just a matter of habit, that could be based on an accidental decision or even a whim. Verizon was presented to the DR public as Verizon pronounced the English way. Had the marketing people here decided to adapt the pronunciation to VerAYsong it would have stuck. (I remember that when I first saw the word my inclination was to pronounce it the French way. Not sure why, it just looked like a French word to me.)

Did anyone else notice that when Orange was launched in the DR they introduced the term 'movil' for mobile phone, which is European usage, when in the DR the American 'celular' was the word people used for their cellphones. Was this deliberate or the result of poor research into the local market? A couple of years down the line the term 'movil' is becoming more common, and is used by other companies too.

The car make Jaguar is pronounced the Spanish way by all Spanish speakers as far as I can tell.

As we're discussing global communications and language here, the link would be that the dominance of the English language in global media such as TV and internet will ensure that the English pronunciation of global brand names will end up prevailing.

[Lesley D]

Chirimoya,

When you say the rules are quite flexible- according to whom and to what source? They are not flexible. I think the general population is not aware that rules such as the ones that I mentioned exist. Therefore using your example of "Burger King" for the lack of knowing how to say it in English (English phonetics) they use the Spanish phonetics. But the correct and acceptable way would be the English pronunciation of "Burger King" when you are speaking Spanish. Don't forget the way people speak is the worst source; rules are broken all the time unfortunately. One of my mandatory translation courses that I took this year dealt specifically with this concept and the rules of grammar do apply. Lack of knowledge is why the rule is being broken. Even in Spain. As well, if people are trying to change the pronunciation of Burger King phonetically then there should be an orthographic change as well in Spanish and I know the English spelling is retained.

The source language pronunciation is the "rule". What people actually say is a whole different story.

I do understand what you are saying and probably I would have agreed if I just spoke Spanish and did not have any grammar and professional background etc. but I have noticed that people who speak Spanish and have studied the language i.e. teachers, translators, journalists etc. and other language related fields that require years of study would not say Burger King the "Spanish way" etc. 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.


-Lesley D

Originally Posted by Chirimoya

Verizon is a brand name, and in the commercial world these rules are quite flexible. Off the top of my head, let's take 'Burger King': in Spain it's pronounced phonetically more or less according to Spanish rules: Voorgerr Keeng. Dominicans (and I am guessing all Latin Americans) say Verger Keeng, following the English pronunciation rather than the Spanish.
.

[Pib]

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 Brulée, for example, I don't use 'french rs' because it makes me sound like Pepe Le Peu.