Kow wrote:Yes!
True Duagh is a tricky one.Depends on who you ask.... Its either doo-awh or dwaaah.Kow wrote:Good luck getting directions to Cobh in Ireland. Or Duagh.
adkm wrote:I dunno, it seems different to me. Stubbornly calling it 'Munich' because some fucker years ago couldn't learn it properly just seems daft. In first year, the guy next to me wrote in his jotter, "Ich heiße Stefan." I pointed out that he wasn't called Stefan, he was called Steven. But Stefan is the German for Steven, he replied. I explained that you don't translate your name. He punched me on the side of the head.
Calling it Italy seems as daft to me as if I went around saying, "Je suis André."
Get a Fucking satnav.superflyninja wrote:True Duagh is a tricky one.Depends on who you ask.... Its either doo-awh or dwaaah.Kow wrote:Good luck getting directions to Cobh in Ireland. Or Duagh.
Yossarian wrote:Making a reference to a place by using a name that the person that you are talking to may not be familiar with when there is a perfectly acceptable name that you can be sure they are familiar with is another choice, and an odd one.
I thought shay was the Argentinian way of pronouncing it and it came from that.Kow wrote:I'm reminded of Simon Mayo correcting Gael García Bernal's pronunciation of the Spanish name Pinochet. For some reason it's typically pronounced pinoshay, when there is absolutely no reason for this - it has no connection to French. I suspect somebody in the past pronounced it like that as they saw it has foreign and picked a foreign sounding pronunciation and it stuck. But saying 'well that's the English pronunciation' is idiotic. It's a mistake, plain and simple, albeit a widely made one. But try saying pinno chet in a conversation and you'll get called a wanker.
Also Che Guevara is chay, not shay.
Yeah it's almost as if language is built upon shared and evolving conventions rather than a fixed set of rules like maths.adkm wrote:Yossarian wrote:Making a reference to a place by using a name that the person that you are talking to may not be familiar with when there is a perfectly acceptable name that you can be sure they are familiar with is another choice, and an odd one.
You keep on arguing on the basis either that I actually do this, or that in my hypothetical scenario, I'd be the only one doing it. No, my argument is that we should all do it, all of the time, in which case these confusing situations you describe would be non-existent. Nobody would be confused by Österreich, because the word 'Austria' wouldn't exist.
The current situation seems even more daft when you consider, in recent years, how often we've changed the word we use to describe certain places, because it was politically incorrect, or we acknowledged that our name was a mangling of the correct name. We do it for some places, but refuse to for others. It's inconsistent.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!