Could the name “Couric” have originated from a foreign land? Should it be pronounced more like the language from which it comes? And what is that language?
I’ve always been intrigued by English transformation of proper names. We have tried to impose our “native” English language on foreign-born names of foreign-born people who speak a foreign language, especially during the great immigration influx of the 19th century. Down through the generations, the result is that we lose a sense of origin of the original name of a person and thus lose a bit of history.
English-American spelling does not duplicate the original because English doesn’t contain characters like ç (Couriç?) or ř (Couřić?). Without the diacritical markings, it is less likely that one would know the true pronunciation of the name. Of course, one of the benefits of spelling English is that it uses 26 letters without diacriticals. But pronouncing English is a whole different matter, especially trying to pronounce foreign-born names, even if an attempt is made to spell them more phonetically.
Changes in names are sometimes a matter of perception, like Ellis Island “round peg in square hole” inventions. Sometimes changes are deliberately made to make the name more saleable or palatable to English speakers of the U.S. and Canada. Israel Isidore Beillin becomes I. Berlin and eventually Irving Berlin, one of the more prolific American song writers. (Would the average American in the early 1900s have bought music written by Isidore Beillin??). Of course in his case, there are those who think that his name was changed at Ellis Island by some foreign-language-challenged clerk or that some music typesetter, trying to save space, just did his job without regard to the composer’s intent.
The word “foreign” is problematic in its own right. This word, I would guess, encouraged many an orator or politician to justify assimilation, a process in the U.S. that encourages immigrants to conform to what was perceived at a particular time to be the American norm. Public school teachers (just like the ones I had when I was growing up!) probably mispronounced quite a few “foreign” names, instantly “Americanizing” them — and it stuck! Those poor children lost the heritage contained in the pronunciation of their names, and the became a little more “American.”
Today, we are starting to pull away from Anglicizing or Americanizing “foreign” names. We are encouraged to embrace “different” or “unfamiliar” cultures and languages. The new political and social correctness calls on us to acknowledge and preserve linguistic history and heritage.
Pronunciation seems to be less of a problem these days because there are standard transliterations being used to help the English speaker properly pronounce foreign words or names. For example, the German ö becomes oe as in the name Boellman, making pronouncing it a little easier for a person who knows nothing about the German language. Of course sometimes there can be two or three spelling standards; The New York Times may spell Quatar and The Daily News may spell it Qatar. Maybe not the best (or most accurate) example, but you get the drift. However, the pronunciation remains the same.
So... are Katie’s precursors from the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, or the former Yugoslavia? (Did I miss any possibilities?) And should we change the pronunciation of her name for her benefit and to restore her linguistic heritage? Bet she — and CBS — would love that!
If you would, please leave me a comment, especially if you suspect how her name could be pronounced.
I’ve always been intrigued by English transformation of proper names. We have tried to impose our “native” English language on foreign-born names of foreign-born people who speak a foreign language, especially during the great immigration influx of the 19th century. Down through the generations, the result is that we lose a sense of origin of the original name of a person and thus lose a bit of history.
English-American spelling does not duplicate the original because English doesn’t contain characters like ç (Couriç?) or ř (Couřić?). Without the diacritical markings, it is less likely that one would know the true pronunciation of the name. Of course, one of the benefits of spelling English is that it uses 26 letters without diacriticals. But pronouncing English is a whole different matter, especially trying to pronounce foreign-born names, even if an attempt is made to spell them more phonetically.
Changes in names are sometimes a matter of perception, like Ellis Island “round peg in square hole” inventions. Sometimes changes are deliberately made to make the name more saleable or palatable to English speakers of the U.S. and Canada. Israel Isidore Beillin becomes I. Berlin and eventually Irving Berlin, one of the more prolific American song writers. (Would the average American in the early 1900s have bought music written by Isidore Beillin??). Of course in his case, there are those who think that his name was changed at Ellis Island by some foreign-language-challenged clerk or that some music typesetter, trying to save space, just did his job without regard to the composer’s intent.
The word “foreign” is problematic in its own right. This word, I would guess, encouraged many an orator or politician to justify assimilation, a process in the U.S. that encourages immigrants to conform to what was perceived at a particular time to be the American norm. Public school teachers (just like the ones I had when I was growing up!) probably mispronounced quite a few “foreign” names, instantly “Americanizing” them — and it stuck! Those poor children lost the heritage contained in the pronunciation of their names, and the became a little more “American.”
Today, we are starting to pull away from Anglicizing or Americanizing “foreign” names. We are encouraged to embrace “different” or “unfamiliar” cultures and languages. The new political and social correctness calls on us to acknowledge and preserve linguistic history and heritage.
Pronunciation seems to be less of a problem these days because there are standard transliterations being used to help the English speaker properly pronounce foreign words or names. For example, the German ö becomes oe as in the name Boellman, making pronouncing it a little easier for a person who knows nothing about the German language. Of course sometimes there can be two or three spelling standards; The New York Times may spell Quatar and The Daily News may spell it Qatar. Maybe not the best (or most accurate) example, but you get the drift. However, the pronunciation remains the same.
So... are Katie’s precursors from the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, or the former Yugoslavia? (Did I miss any possibilities?) And should we change the pronunciation of her name for her benefit and to restore her linguistic heritage? Bet she — and CBS — would love that!
If you would, please leave me a comment, especially if you suspect how her name could be pronounced.
No comments:
Post a Comment