How is "bokeh" pronounced?

the Japanese language is highly visual, and actually develops parts of the brain from birth, that you won't have if you weren't born with Japanese speaking as you grew up.

Not completely different from Mandarin where native speakers have a higher percentage of natural perfect pitch (musical tonal pitch).

One thing that I've observed having lived in Japan is that a fluent speaking gaijin, even if they've been there 20 years and can speak fluently on the phone with the person on the other side of the phone thinking they were Nihonjin, would never ever say they spoke fluently.

So whenever someone not born in Japan says they are fluent in Japanese, without even hearing their first utterances, I know they are full of shi!take! The bull kind.

B!tch Please! We are a modest people.
 
Bokeh schmokeh ... there's two M8s for sale on the main page classifieds! :eek:

Don't see that too often!
 
tlitody said:
but when there is an e after the k it is pronounced as you would poke and not as in bottle
Click to expand...

In Japanese "ho", "bo" & "po" can more or less be the same sound - the difference is just whether its an aspirated or non-aspirated sound. Whenever you look at kana tables they only show the "ho" = ホ. With the other two sounds, bo = ボ and po = ポ all that changes is the superscript to indicate which aspiration.
 
ampguy said:
the Japanese language is highly visual, and actually develops parts of the brain from birth, that you won't have if you weren't born with Japanese speaking as you grew up.

So that is unique to Japanese? No other languages do that to the brain?

Not completely different from Mandarin where native speakers have a higher percentage of natural perfect pitch (musical tonal pitch).

Unless they have changed recently, Japanese is still in the Mongolian family of languages, as is Korean, Turkish, and Finnish. It is not tonal as is Mandarin and all others in the Chinese family of languages. They don't need perfect pitch to speak and be understood, but they should not be tone deaf, as was one of my fellow students when I studied Vietnamese. Perhaps you were speaking of something different however. It just sort of sounded like you were saying Japanese was tonal.

One thing that I've observed having lived in Japan is that a fluent speaking gaijin, even if they've been there 20 years and can speak fluently on the phone with the person on the other side of the phone thinking they were Nihonjin, would never ever say they spoke fluently.

It is difficult to be fluent in another language which is not the native language and is learned after one passes the early 20s. But not impossible, some people just seem to have a knack and keep a pliable brain. It can depend on the definition of fluent. Some consider fluency as a command of words like a native. Most think pronunciation should be part of it. I think both can be used if one qualifies what one believes constitutes fluency.

So whenever someone not born in Japan says they are fluent in Japanese, without even hearing their first utterances, I know they are full of shi!take! The bull kind.

Then I take it you are not fluent, sir? That's a long time not to be fluent.

B!tch Please! We are a modest people.

Hope it doesn't sound as if I am bitching. Just sharing some experiences I have had with language. :)
Click to expand...

Ten characters.
 
Last edited:
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that a native japanese speaker here could record the pronunciation and put it where we can get hold of it. Then every time someone asks we can just point them to the sound file. I think that might save a lot of time and confusion.
 
craygc said:
In Japanese "ho", "bo" & "po" can more or less be the same sound - the difference is just whether its an aspirated or non-aspirated sound. Whenever you look at kana tables they only show the "ho" = ホ. With the other two sounds, bo = ボ and po = ポ all that changes is the superscript to indicate which aspiration.
Click to expand...

But I don't ever look at kana tables and I doubt most people here do. That is the cause of the confusion. We all use English pronunciation of the word as spelt which is apparently different from the japanese pronunciation.
 
tlitody said:
But I don't ever look at kana tables and I doubt most people here do. That is the cause of the confusion. We all use English pronunciation of the word as spelt which is apparently different from the japanese pronunciation.
Click to expand...

...someone should now hijack the thread and ask how is "nikon" pronounced :bang:
 
iee

iee

uso bakkari!

the "ten ten" in hiragana/katakana makes all the difference in the world, totally different sound.

There are symbols in kanji that can have different phonetics, for example

yamada and yamata might have the same kanji for the da and ta:

山田

If you saw the above on a meishii (bus. card) and didn't know the person, you might not know how to pronounce their name.


craygc said:
In Japanese "ho", "bo" & "po" can more or less be the same sound - the difference is just whether its an aspirated or non-aspirated sound. Whenever you look at kana tables they only show the "ho" = ホ. With the other two sounds, bo = ボ and po = ポ all that changes is the superscript to indicate which aspiration.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom