| صفحات الموضوع: [1 2] > | Off topic: liungisitc rscheearch ناشر الموضوع: Chris Hopley
|
|---|
Chris Hopley 
هولندا
Local time: 17:33
ألماني إلى أنجليزي
+ ...
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
| | | |
Chris Hopley wrote:
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
That was cool. It doesn't excuse sloppy spelling though!!
Tnaksh, adn hvea a gdoo dya.
Ktya
| | | | | I suheddr to tihnik waht mess it wuold be | Sep 15, 2003 |
Eevn tpynig scuh msesaegs birngs a haedcahe to me!
| | | | CMJ_Trans (X)
Local time: 17:33
فرنسي إلى أنجليزي
+ ...
| truth is stranger than fiction | Sep 15, 2003 |
Has to be some truth in what they say becuase even dumb old me understood without the slightest difficulty!
| | |
|
|
|
| I too realized the "Whole Word method" is right | Sep 15, 2003 |
and the "Single letter method" is wrong when I learnt Russian: I was able to read known words fluently, but as soon as I stumbled on an unknown one, I had to decipher letter by letter very slowly.
| | | | LinguaText (X)
أنجليزي إلى صيني
+ ...
| Yeah, that's new practice | Sep 15, 2003 |
Happy to read and find.
| | | | Henk Peelen
هولندا
Local time: 17:33
عضو (2002)
ألماني إلى هولندي
+ ...
مترجم الموقع
Are you srue you d'ndit fgreot to say tihs cnutos olny for one, two and terhe lteetr wdros?
[Edited at 2003-09-15 14:16]
| | | | Kirill Semenov
أوكرانيا
Local time: 18:33
عضو (2004)
أنجليزي إلى روسي
+ ...
| Since Russian it is ;-) | Sep 15, 2003 |
Martin Schmurr wrote:
and the "Single letter method" is wrong when I learnt Russian: I was able to read known words fluently, but as soon as I stumbled on an unknown one, I had to decipher letter by letter very slowly.
This is how Russian works: changing any letter's position, you get another word and new meaning, heh.
[Edited at 2003-09-15 13:34]
| | |
|
|
|
This reminds me of these studies about how many days a human being can endure without eating, drinking or sleeping, or living in a cave without light. They usually find humans can do it for longer than most people expect, but it is very uncomfortable living.
So, in principle it may be right, but I think most of us would prefer letters to stay put.
[Edited at 2003-09-15 17:31]
| | | | | Here's an interesting experiment | Sep 15, 2003 |
I found this on the internet. It's got to do with it.
Claudia
HOW SMART ARE YOU?
Read this sentence:
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE-
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF-
IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE
EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.
Now count aloud the F's in that sentence. Count them ONLY ONCE.
Do not go back and count them again.
===
Scroll down for the answer
<... See more I found this on the internet. It's got to do with it.
Claudia
HOW SMART ARE YOU?
Read this sentence:
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE-
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF-
IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE
EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.
Now count aloud the F's in that sentence. Count them ONLY ONCE.
Do not go back and count them again.
===
Scroll down for the answer
===
There are six F's in the sentence.
One of the average intelligence finds three of them.
If you spotted four, you're above average. If you got five, you can turn up your nose at most anybody.
If you caught six, you are a genius!
There is no catch. Most people forget the OFs. The human brain tends to see them as "Vs" instead of "Fs."
Here is the same text, but we highlighted the F's for your review!
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE-
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF-
IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE
EXPERIENCE OF YEARS. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | How about another expriment? | Sep 16, 2003 |
A man took a cat and trained it to jump on command. Then he removed its one leg and commanded it. It jumped. Then he removed the second leg and commanded. It jumped. On removing the third leg too it jumped. But on removing the fourth leg it stayed put. The experimenter drew this conclusion: If you remove all its legs, a cat becomes deaf!
| | | |
Caliaa wrote:
Now count aloud the F's in that sentence.
There is no catch. Most people forget the OFs. The human brain tends to see them as "Vs" instead of "Fs."
Well, if you count the f's when reading the sentence ALOUD, there are only three of them.
OF is pronounced as [@v], and not [@f] or [of] - where @ stands for the sound schwa.
However, it is really amusing.
Attila
| | |
|
|
|
| OF pronunciation | Sep 16, 2003 |
Attila Piroth wrote:
Well, if you count the f's when reading the sentence ALOUD, there are only three of them.
OF is pronounced as [@v], and not [@f] or [of] - where @ stands for the sound schwa.
However, it is really amusing.
Attila
Well, it is not really that OF is always pronounced [@v], try for example 'of course'.
Romuald
| | | | | Assimilation | Sep 16, 2003 |
I suppose this line is getting a bit too far afield from the original posting.
Romuald Pawlikowski wrote: Well, it is not really that OF is always pronounced [@v], try for example 'of course'. Romuald
You are right, of couse, of course [@f "kO:s || "kO:rs] is a very good example of assimilation. A simple one, as the sounds v and f are very similar (voiced and voiceless labiodanetal fricative).
Assimilation is very common, and is not indicated separately in dictionaries.
Who would go as far as to say that
ten should be transcribed as [tem],
as in "ten men [ten "men]?
In the original text,
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE-
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF-
IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE
EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.
of in OF YEARS is clearly pronounced as [@v], however, in OF SCIENTIFIC it sounds more like [@f]! So, I should have counted 4 instead of 3!
Attila
| | | | vladex
Local time: 17:33
بولندي
+ ...
| what's the problem? | Sep 17, 2003 |
Attila Piroth wrote:
IIn the original text,
of in OF YEARS is clearly pronounced as [@v], however, in OF SCIENTIFIC it sounds more like [@f]! So, I should have counted 4 instead of 3!
Attila
But I don't get the point. You were to count letters "f" not sounds [f]. If a word like 'Philadelphia' occured in the text, would you count two "f"s more?
(BTW, I don't even try to start discussion whether [f] palatalized by [i] is a different sound or phoneme )
| | | | | صفحات الموضوع: [1 2] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » liungisitc rscheearch | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
