# stołówka (pronunciation)



## iezik

In IPA, the pronuncation is /sto'wufka/, on forvo I hear and interpret the pronuciation as /sto'ufka/. The standard pronuciation would have longer glide, so not /o'u/ but /o'wu/. Am I right or wrong? Thanks, Iezik

There is only one pronuciation on forvo for this word, as of today.


----------



## Karton Realista

People are exteremally clumsy with pronounciation and eat letters. /o'u/ and /o'wu/ sound almost exactly the same and therefore in fast speech ł disappers, at least to foreigners, Polish people wouldn't really notice on any level. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself when it comes to such trivialities.


----------



## jasio

iezik said:


> In IPA, the pronuncation is /sto'wufka/, on forvo I hear and interpret the pronuciation as /sto'ufka/.


The standard pronunciation is with [w], [sto'wufka] (on stołówka – Wikisłownik, wolny słownik wielojęzyczny they transcribed it as [stɔˈwufka], using different variant of [o] phone). This is the only proper pronunciation. However, as Karton Realista noticed:



Karton Realista said:


> People are exteremally clumsy with pronounciation and eat letters. /o'u/ and /o'wu/ sound almost exactly the same and therefore in fast speech ł disappers, at least to foreigners,


Indeed, in a clumsy, careless, fast speech or perhaps in some dialects, the [w] phone (represented by 'ł' letter) seems to disappear in certain positions - which may be a continuation of a process which led to replacing [ɫ] with [w] in the first place. Some people consistently say '*gówny' instead of 'główny', '*pojechaa' instead of 'pojechała', '*stoówka' instead of 'stołówka', etc. Perhaps it will be a future norm, but for now it's incorrect.



Karton Realista said:


> Polish people wouldn't really notice on any level. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself when it comes to such trivialities.


If they are not completely deaf, they will notice. They may not pay attention though. 
Personally, I receive it as a sign of an uneducated speech, like pronouncing 'ą' as 'om'. So for iezik I would put it in a category 'understand, but never use yourself'.


----------



## Karton Realista

jasio said:


> If they are not completely deaf, they will notice. They may not pay attention though.


I tried many times to pronounce this both ways and fail to see (in this example) significant difference. From that I conclude that I'm completely deaf. 


jasio said:


> Personally, I receive it as a sign of an uneducated speech, like pronouncing 'ą' as 'om'.


People from Praga are probably going to disagree, since it is an aspect of Masovian dialect.


----------



## jasio

Karton Realista said:


> I tried many times to pronounce this both ways and fail to see (in this example) significant difference. From that I conclude that I'm completely deaf.


So you DO hear the difference, but consider it insignificant, don't you? It's exactly what I referred to. 



Karton Realista said:


> People from Praga are probably going to disagree, since it is an aspect of Masovian dialect.


People from Praga may have their own personal opinion, of course, and they have a natural right to have other personal opinions than my own. On the other hand, I have a right to consider "_a juści, tera pódźmy na stoówkie z tom parom z dou ino sie ubioro_" uneducated speech regardless of how many people from Praga would disagree. Besides, a characteristic feature of an educated speech probably in any given language is a reduction of regional, and social features of the person's natural language. An educated person from Praga should not sound like his fellow chap spending his whole life between a cheap wine shop and a bench in a park, should he?


----------



## Thomas1

jasio said:


> Personally, I receive it as a sign of an uneducated speech,


I agree. If we're talking about the standard Polish language, it's a mistake to skip the [w] sound. I'd recommend teaching the  pronunciation [sto'wufka] to Polish students.


----------



## Karton Realista

jasio said:


> Besides, a characteristic feature of an educated speech probably in any given language is a reduction of regional, and social features of the person's natural language.


That is what I call disgusting and saddening disappearance of regional speech.
I think this discussion is off-topic and counterproductive, we put value in and prioritise different things.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Karton Realista said:


> That is what I call disgusting and saddening disappearance of regional speech.
> I think this discussion is off-topic and counterproductive, we put value in and prioritise different things.


Here in this forum we, native speakers give the standard Polish pronunciation as default. Dialectal pronunciation should be dealt with separately.


----------



## Karton Realista

Ben Jamin said:


> Here in this forum we, native speakers give the standard Polish pronunciation as default. Dialectal pronunciation should be dealt with separately.


I don't disagree with this statement at all. Just disagreeing with "dialectical features of one's speech show their lack of education", which the post that you responded to was about.


----------



## jasio

Karton Realista said:


> That is what I call disgusting and saddening disappearance of regional speech.


Decreasing number of etnolects is a mere fact. It is sad, yet it just happens.



Karton Realista said:


> I don't disagree with this statement at all. Just disagreeing with "dialectical features of one's speech show their lack of education", which the post that you responded to was about.


One's culture can be recognised, among other things, by the ability to use a language register which is proper in given circumstances. I do not mind if a hypothetical 'educated guy from Praga' which I referred to earlier, speaks his local dialect and uses local pronunciation when visiting his school friends or family. On the contrary - if he spoke standard Polish instead, he might be perceived as turning up his nose. However, if he speaks to a general audience - whether educated or not - I would expect him to use standard Polish rather than a dialect. 

Besides, within dialects or regional variants themselves you can find out that educated people speak in a different way than non-educated. If a member of a parliament, scientist, teacher, or a journalist in radio or TV speaks with traces of a regional accent or uses dialectical expressions (like "na pole" or "chodziliźmy" instead of "chodziliśmy"), I don't really mind, that's a local flavour. However if he says "*szkoa gówna handlowa", "*ido", "*piszo", "*idom", "*piszom", I do not care where does this pronunciation come from. In my ears he sounds like a moron, full stop. Sorry.


----------



## Thomas1

Thomas1 said:


> I agree. If we're talking about the standard Polish language, it's a mistake to skip the [w] sound. I'd recommend teaching the  pronunciation [sto'wufka] to Polish students.


Having said that and just listened to the pronunciation at forvo, I don't find it incorrect. I also discern the sound in question in the recording.


----------

