What I'm wondering is when does the Ruskie fire brigade get to call out this service? Is it reserved for former party members and the criminal elite or are Uri and Magda *Cysiet entitled to the air-tanker service?

My phonetic variation of "neighbor" in Russian, 'cause I try to be a clever mtrfkr when I can-

Your video, A Phonetic Description Of The Annoying Sounds Teenagers Make, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Personally (American, btw), I find a lot of things that technically may be the same phonetically, I nonetheless pronounce slightly differently depending on the spelling. For instance, the 'f' sound in, say, philanthropic, I pronounce slightly differently. It's not something I could put into writing really, but when spelled with a "ph" I hold that sound slightly longer, it's a little breathier, and don't press my teeth against my lip so much or so abruptly, as I would were it spelled with an 'f.' A linguist would probably have a better vocabulary to describe this, but it's also the same for 'c' when it makes an 's' sound. There are many other examples as well. Another, off the top of my head is "can't." Were it spelled with an 'k', the 'a' sound would be more abrupt than when I pronounce it's proper spelling. "Ake" I would pronounce slightly differencly from "ache". It's subtle, but the 'ch' sound does make it in there.

Maybe this is just me, and all things being equal, I would prefer simplified spellings, but I nevertheless pronounce things with a subtle difference depending on how they're spelled.

My favorite is how they phonetically subtitled "Gurl".

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Because this is done phonetically, I'm guessing the lyrics would be nonsensical to a German speaker.

This week I taught my first classes with a new set of Thai HS Seniors (the semesters start at a different time here). I always start out by getting a roster with the students' full names in Thai and having them write their nicknames in English, then taking roll call to make sure I am pronouncing the names correctly. There is no set way to write Thai sounds in English, so there is a lot of variation in how to spell things.

Anyway, one boy on the list wrote his nickname as "Kok". I correctly assumed that he wanted that to be pronounced "Coke", but then explained to him that if he goes with the other spelling an average westerner will probably call him "cock" which is rather unfortunate...

In 5 years of being here I've seen a lot of semi-unusual or unfortunate names and nicknames.

Odd: Dollar, Bible, Bird (hordes of those), Blue, Oil, Dump, Bomb, Gun, Nuke, etc.
Unfortunate: Fook, Fluck ("fluke"), Gook ("guck"), Poo, Poopae, Dodo, Porn (loads of this one also), Titee (girls name)

The worst and/or funniest one I've seen was a girl who converted her full Thai name into an English spelling of "Titteeporn Suksonmanee". Considering Thailand's ... reputation, that one is particularly unfortunate, although the actual pronunciation of the surname is more like suke-sawn-MA-knee.

On the flipside many western names translate phonetically into rather unfortunate things in Thai, or are commonly mispronounced into something bad in English. For example, Jim means "pussy" in Thai, Chris will usually be pronounced by Thais as "Clit", etc. etc.

>> ^Fantomas:

I too believe Neil puts too much emphasis on the 1% figure. It's true that this 1% has given us a reverse pelvis allowing us to walk on two legs, freeing our hands, and given us a relocated voice-box to allow us to vocalise language. But these are just biological tools, it's how we use them that is important. We are not born with a language built in or the ability to use our hands in a skilled way, these things must be taught and learned, which is what pushes us beyond this '1%'.


Actually, there has been an interview done with Chomsky in Discover magazine that would suggest that certain phonetic patterns similar to language are, in fact, inborn. There is evidence that there may be an instinct in humans to communicate through language with certain forms and rules common across all races and places. I thought that was a very interesting interview.

Wow, I wonder if they learned this phonetically.
*promote

>> ^deathcow:

i'll take some fresh spring rolls, crispy spring rolls, pad ped kai, pad thai, basil chicken extra spicy, kang karie and some chicken satay


Since you clearly like your Thai food, I thought I'd reply here with some pronunciation and literal translation quirks about those menu items -- the staff at a Thai restaurant (assuming they are Thai anyway) will get a kick out of it if you play up the right angles. This gets long (sorry), so anyone not interested skip to the next post...

Spring rolls - "bpo bpeah" in Thai. The bp is a phoneme that we don't really have in English -- try to combine the two sounds but err on the side of sounding more like "p" than "b". The second word sounds sort of like "bpEEE-uhhh", or like how somebody with a thick Massachusetts accent would say "beer" or "peer". For crispy spring rolls, you would just add the word "toht" to the end, which means "fried" or deep fat fried -- "bpo bpeah toht".

Pad Ped Kai - Pad means "fried" also, but more like pan fried. Ped (sounds more like "pet") means "spicy". Kai means "egg". So all together I would think that would mean "stir-fried spicy egg", but it isn't a menu item that I have heard of before. I think that maybe the Kai should be Gai instead -- Gai means "chicken". The "g" sound in Thai is sort of halfway between a g and a k, so sometimes things get phonetically translated in different ways. But if it is chicken, make it sound more like a g; like "guy".

Pad Thai - sort of indirectly translates as "that fried dish that is famous/popular in Thailand", which is descriptive but not in a content / culinary way like most Thai food.

Basil Chicken Extra Spicy - the most popular Thai dish that is heavy on basil is Pad Kapow (sounds like the word for hitting someone; ka-POW). So, I bet that the Thai name for your Basil Chicken would be Pad Kapow Gai. Throw a "Pet Maak" on the end to specify extra spicy -- "pad kapow gai pet maak".

Kang Karie - I usually see this one romanized into G's instead of K's. Usually "gaeng gallee" (I'd argue that is the best phonetic guide also). "Kang"/"Gaeng" means "curry", and "Gallee" is a specific type of curry. However, point of interest, "gallee" also means "whore". This Thai homonym is responsible for menu translations like the one you can see here. To explain that link, "gallee" curry comes in powder form. The Thai word/phrase for gallee curry powder is "foong gallee". Run that through google translate or the like, and instead of getting "gallee curry powder" you get "whore dust". This is a source of great amusement to Thais, making fun of their friends when ordering, etc.

Chicken Satay - not originally a Thai thing (loooong time ago), but it is very popular here now. In the US I always heard it said like "saw-tay", but in Thailand it sounds more like "SUH-tae". Chicken satay is available, but generally more popular among foreigners here. In areas without a large farang (western foreigner) population, 99% of the time satay will be pork. I actually like the pork version better now. Anyway, in Thai chicken satay would sound like "gai suhtae" and pork would sound like "moo suhtae".

I think lucky760 hit the nail on the head there. She's seeing the word in her head and reading it backwards like a sign I used to be able to do simple math in my head the same way by imagining that I had a chalk board in my head. Though admittedly she is doing it really really fast. Props!

>> ^artician:

That's an insane talent. I don't think everyone can do this. I couldn't even fathom how. It's probably just a genetic trait for some people, because I certainly don't think most people analyze the phonetics or spelling of a word as they hear them. I could probably do this for one word after about 30 seconds of thinking hard about it.




>> ^lucky760:

Most impressive.
Note that she's pronouncing the reverse of the spelling of each word, not the sound of each word (example: "batch" as "hick-tab" versus "chab"), which has a much higher degree of difficulty than the latter.
I often find myself reading printed words backwards all the time like on street signs, etc., but I don't have Alyssa's immense talent to imagine a word in my mind's eye and read it reversed in a split second.
Her neck must hurt from carrying around that big brain all the time.

That's an insane talent. I don't think everyone can do this. I couldn't even fathom how. It's probably just a genetic trait for some people, because I certainly don't think most people analyze the phonetics or spelling of a word as they hear them. I could probably do this for one word after about 30 seconds of thinking hard about it.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I used to play this game where we would use the old win 95 sound recorder to reverse a word, figure out how it sounds, then rerecord us saying it in "backwards" speak, and reverse it to see if we got close. It was a lot of fun, but there are some sounds I just can't make


Myself and my bandmates used to get very drunk and do this with entire songs. It was just the funniest thing, especially when you went to the trouble of doing the harmonies in a vocal. Learning backwards melodies is well hard because when reversed they make absolutely no sense. Often we'd do only a few words at a time.

Amazing skill that she has, I'd be even more impressed if she could pronounce them phonetically backwards, rather than pronouncing them as if the reverse spelling was an actual word. I enhanced and reversed some of the audio to see how close she was. You can listen on dropbox:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23121286/backwards.mp3

Yea true i cant understand some of the words.

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
>> ^belanos: Amazing, except for one thing, the girl needs to enunciate! 10 years old, singing phonetically in a second language. I'd say she's doing pretty well.

>> ^belanos:

Amazing, except for one thing, the girl needs to enunciate!


10 years old, singing phonetically in a second language.
I'd say she's doing pretty well.

The best evidence is just filling in the gaps in science.

I'll have to disagree with you here. To say the evidence for a creator is just filling in the gaps isn't true when it is a better explanation for the evidence. Take DNA, for instance. DNA is a complex coded language which contains grammar, syntax, phoenetics, etc There is no naturalistic explanation that can account for it; DNA is information, and information only comes from minds. The medium doesn't matter. Just as a message transcends the paper and ink it is written in, and just as you can write that message in the sand and has no loss of data, DNA is transcendent of its medium. A designer is a better explanation for the existence of DNA. Check out this article:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3040594/The-Linguistics-of-DNA-Words-Sentences-Grammar-Phonetics-and-Semantics

What happened before the Big Bang? I don't know. "God did it" isn't evidence, it isn't rational or logical. "God did it" used to be the explanation for the shape of the Earth and the movement of the stars, when that was questioned, the questioner was threatened with death. However, by continuing to question, we now know a lot about the solar system, enough to put satellites into orbit and photograph distance planets.

That is just a fallacy, though. Just because people used "God did it" as an explanation for things we know understand in more detail is not evidence against the existence of God. It is just evidence for the ignorance of people. Christians aren't against science. I am against things which aren't science, like things which have never been observed and are untestable, like macro evolution.

Scientific theories are indeed interpretation of facts and in many cases, it involves jumps because we can't explain everything. This is what the word "theory" means in this context, rather than the meaning the Fox News's of the world use when they pretend it means that science is guessing. That's why there is always doubt, always questions to be asked and answers to be listened to. The important thing is that it is interpretation and extrapolating data, i.e. it is based on what we can prove.

Science does a lot of guessing. This is why theories have changed so many times in the last few centuries. Not too long ago, science was certain the Universe was static and eternal. It was one of the evidences that atheists would use against Creationists. Now, we know the Universe had a definitive beginning. The scientist who discovered said that there is no other theory which lends itself so well to the creation account in Genesis.

My main point is that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. It is not anything it can prove or disprove. God is a spirit, and a spirit is an immaterial being. There is no empirical evidence for something immaterial.

However, some answers have been listened to and fallen short. For example, Intelligent Design. This has been discussed and no rational, logical or empirical evidence have been put forward. This is why it has been rejected, by me and by the scientific community: not because we don't want to hear but because it's been talked to death, causes distracting controversy and frankly, it's clearly bullshit. I wouldn't want my child taught it in school because if you teach one unsubstantiated load of nonsense, where does it end? I want rational and logical things taught to my children. If I want my children to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I will teach them myself and when I struggle to explain the dinosaurs and radiocarbon dating that they learnt about in school, I should take a long hard look at myself.

Again, intelligent design is a better explanation than natural selection by random mutation for a number of things. When darwinian theory was created, the cell was thought to be a simple ball of protoplasm. We now know the cell is more complex than the space shuttle, by an order of magnitude. There is no naturalistic process which can account for the existence of this complex and intricate nano-machinery. Just because you consider it "bullshit" doesn't make it so. The Universe has the appearance of design. There are 30 or so factors in physics which have to be precisely calibrated for the Universe to even form correct, let alone for life to develop. The odds of this happeneing by chance are beyond calculation. Instead of admitting that and changing the theory, scientists then postulate multiple Universes to make the design features in this one seem plausible as happenstance.

Here is a nice video on the complexity of the cell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSasTS-n_gM&feature=related

If you want to talk about radiocarbon dating, this again is something which is an interpretation of evidence based on a number of unprovable assumptions. It presumes that radioactive decay rates have remained constant in the past and that there was no contamination over periods of millions or billions of years. Check out this article:

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/fatal-flaw-radioactive-dating/

I do rely on empirical evidence, we all do. You are relying on what you see too, what you see written on the pages of the Bible. Short of Descartes' "I think therefore I am" philosophy, everything we think exists is empirical. If we can't believe what we see or what we consider to be self evident, how can you believe what you think you are reading from what you think is a Bible?

I am relying on my own experience, and in my experience I have observed that the material reality is a veil, and behind that veil is a spiritual reality which encompasses it. I have seen the evidence of a higher power working in the world, who relates to us on a personal level. I believe the bible because my experience confirms it, not because I just assume it is true.

Is believing my own eyes and my own mind what you want to call my religion? That seems to be to be very different to religion as I know the word.

When you have faith in metaphysical claims, and that faith informs your entire worldview, that is indeed like a religion. What you are seeing is through the lens of that worldview..

>> ^Quboid:
I haven't seen any good evidence for Christianity. I haven't seen any good evidence for the existence of God. The best evidence is just filling in the gaps in science. What happened before the Big Bang? I don't know. "God did it" isn't evidence, it isn't rational or logical. "God did it" used to be the explanation for the shape of the Earth and the movement of the stars, when that was questioned, the questioner was threatened with death. However, by continuing to question, we now know a lot about the solar system, enough to put satellites into orbit and photograph distance planets.
Scientific theories are indeed interpretation of facts and in many cases, it involves jumps because we can't explain everything. This is what the word "theory" means in this context, rather than the meaning the Fox News's of the world use when they pretend it means that science is guessing. That's why there is always doubt, always questions to be asked and answers to be listened to. The important thing is that it is interpretation and extrapolating data, i.e. it is based on what we can prove.
However, some answers have been listened to and fallen short. For example, Intelligent Design. This has been discussed and no rational, logical or empirical evidence have been put forward. This is why it has been rejected, by me and by the scientific community: not because we don't want to hear but because it's been talked to death, causes distracting controversy and frankly, it's clearly bullshit. I wouldn't want my child taught it in school because if you teach one unsubstantiated load of nonsense, where does it end? I want rational and logical things taught to my children. If I want my children to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I will teach them myself and when I struggle to explain the dinosaurs and radiocarbon dating that they learnt about in school, I should take a long hard look at myself.
I do rely on empirical evidence, we all do. You are relying on what you see too, what you see written on the pages of the Bible. Short of Descartes' "I think therefore I am" philosophy, everything we think exists is empirical. If we can't believe what we see or what we consider to be self evident, how can you believe what you think you are reading from what you think is a Bible?
Is believing my own eyes and my own mind what you want to call my religion? That seems to be to be very different to religion as I know the word.