# ëszik



## Ben Jamin

Hello,
I am trying to help a choir to pronounce correctly the words of the Kodaly song _Túrót ëszik a cigány_. I learned once the principles of Hungarian pronunciation, and listened to many Hungarians, so I thought that I could manage the task quite well. But in the text they use the letter 'ë' that I had never seen i Hungarian before (ëszik, lë, ëgyet). 

What is the pronunciation of 'ë'? Is it the same as 'é'?


----------



## jazyk

The Gypsy eats curd cheese?

There is eszik, but I don't know about the two dots above the e. I would disregard them.


----------



## Ben Jamin

jazyk said:


> The Gypsy eats curd cheese?
> 
> There is eszik, but I don't know about the two dots above the e. I would disregard them.


 Yes, I know in standard Hungarian there would be 'e', not 'é'. It might be an emphatic marking of 'e', but it might be something else. I still suppose that the one that put the dieresis over the 'e's did it with some purpose.


----------



## jazyk

Maybe old spelling?


----------



## francisgranada

Ben Jamin said:


> Hello,
> I am trying to help a choir to pronounce correctly the words of the Kodaly song _Túrót ëszik a cigány_. I learned once the principles of Hungarian pronunciation, and listened to many Hungarians, so I thought that I could manage the task quite well. But in the text they use the letter 'ë' that I had never seen i Hungarian before (ëszik, lë, ëgyet).
> 
> What is the pronunciation of 'ë'? Is it the same as 'é'?


 
The pronounciation of *ë* is like that of the *é*, but short. 

The letter *ë *with the dots is not used normally, only when there's a need to mark the difference between the open and the closed *e*. As Kodály worked with folk songs, I suppose that it maybe important to pronounce the vowels exactly as they are pronouced in the given song (or dialect).

With other words, in Hungarian there were originally two separate "kinds" of *e,* closed and open (ë/e), like in Finnish (e/ä) or Italian (é/è). This situation still survives in many dialects (maybe in most of them), but not in the today's standard language. 

To make the difference in the pronountiation is still correct (and nice), but no more common.


----------



## Ben Jamin

francisgranada said:


> The pronounciation of *ë* is like that of the *é*, but short.
> 
> The letter *ë *with the dots is not used normally, only when there's a need to mark the difference between the open and the closed *e*. As Kodály worked with folk songs, I suppose that it maybe important to pronounce the vowels exactly as they are pronouced in the given song (or dialect).
> 
> With other words, in Hungarian there were originally two separate "kinds" of *e,* closed and open (ë/e), like in Finnish (e/ä) or Italian (é/è). This situation still survives in many dialects (maybe in most of them), but not in the today's standard language.
> 
> To make the difference in the pronountiation is still correct (and nice), but no more common.


 Is *ë then *the same as 'e' in 'eszik'?


----------



## Zsanna

Hello Ben Jamin,
You can get some more information about this in this thread entitled 
*Nyílt és zárt "e"* .

I have a vague memory of having seen real* Hungarian folk songs written out that way, i.e. with the trema on the _e_s. I suppose they wanted to be as close to the original way of singing as it was possible.

I think you could also say that the pronunciaton of the ë is similar to the English open /ae/ sound, like in: cat, hat, bat, etc. 
(Sorry, I don't have my Internatonal alphabet near hand.)

* In old song collections by Kodály and Bartók.

Re you question above: yes, that "e" in eszik can be pronounced like that and _then_ it is the same.


----------



## francisgranada

Ben Jamin said:


> Is *ë then *the same as 'e' in 'eszik'?


 
In the standard language yes, because all the short *e* (regardless of the dots) are pronounced in the same way. So in your case, I suppose, that nothing happens when you will simply ignore the dots above the "e". It means, that you will make no difference, and pronounce all the "e" (with and without the dots) in the same "neutral" way.


----------



## Zsanna

jazyk said:


> The Gypsy eats curd cheese?
> 
> There is eszik, but I don't know about the two dots above the e. I would disregard them.


 
You may be right because the pronunciation probably won't be "perfect" anyway and there may not be much point in insisiting on exactly this aspect. 
I would think that the right stress and pausing at the right places may be more important than pronouncing the ë sounds properly.


----------



## jazyk

> You may be right because the pronunciation probably won't be "perfect"  anyway and there may not be much point in insisiting on exactly this  aspect.
> I would think that the right stress and pausing at the right places may be more important than pronuncing the ë sounds properly.


----------



## francisgranada

Zsanna said:


> ... I think you could also say that the pronunciaton of the ë is similar to the English open /ae/ sound, like in: cat, hat, bat, etc...


 
Szia, Zsanna. Nem fordítva? 
(t.i. ha nincsenek a pontok rajta, akkor nyílt mint a_ bad_ és pontokkal zárt mint a _bed_)


----------



## Ben Jamin

francisgranada said:


> Szia, Zsanna. Nem fordítva?
> (t.i. ha nincsenek a pontok rajta, akkor nyílt mint a_ bad_ és pontokkal zárt mint a _bed_)


The short e I heard in Hungarian sounds to me most like in English 'pet' or 'met', rather not like in 'bad' (at least not in British English). This is confirmed by the diagram   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hungarian_vowel_chart_with_rounded_short_a.svg


----------



## francisgranada

Ben Jamin said:


> The short e I heard in Hungarian sounds to me most like in English 'pet' or 'met', rather not like in 'bad' (at least not in British English). This is confirmed by the diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hungarian_vowel_chart_with_rounded_short_a.svg


 
Yes, in the today's standard speach the short "e" sounds aproximately like e.g. in Polish "dla cz*e*go" or in Spanish "t*e*ngo". 

As it was said before, in some dialects, in place of the standard "neutral" short "e", we have two separate short sounds: the closed "e" (spelt as *ë*, prounced like a short *é*) or the open "e" (spelt *e* without any sign, pronounced _aproximately_ like "b*a*d" in English). Of course, there are qualitative differences among these dialects, too (e.g. somewhere the open *e* is "less open" than in the Eglish "bad" etc ...) A detailed explanation can be found here http://www.tar.hu/busmanus/2es.htm.


----------



## Zsanna

Sorry, yes, you are right. 
The English is an open "e" and the Hungarian (ë) is a closed one. (Shouldn't have written in such a hurry.)

I also realised later that Ben J. may not have been able to appreciate fully the provided link to our thread as it was mainly in Hungarian. (It may be interesting for the examples, though.)


----------



## Ateesh6800

As a linguist and choir singer, let me encourage you to *just ignore the double dots*.
Kodály used them to indicate the "zárt e" sound, but that sound is basically _never reproduced by any Hungarian choirs_.

The issue was a question of language politics. Kodály wanted to preserve the diversity of Hungarian dialects and keep this sound alive despite the fact that it was disappearing from standard Hungarian already at the time. Today it is part of some dialects but is rarely heard on national TV/radio.

The "e" with the umlaut is practically the same sound as the "e" in the English pronunciation of "set". The Hungarian sound "e" without the umlaut is the sound represented in IPA with a lower case Greek epsilon (a reversed "3"). *But this is really a difference that 99 percent of Hungarian choirs will not care about.* Kodály's effort to keep the sound alive in the spoken language _has failed_. His musical legacy has not. 

So,* ignore the dots *and listen to a quality recording by a Hungarian choir. As a challenge, I tried to convince my own all-Hungarian choir to try and reproduce the sound but it sounded _very artificial_ because in our dialect this sound is basically never used and the people were just not comfortable singing it. Hungarian is a challenge anyway, so don't worry about those dots. 

*A.*


----------



## Akitlosz

Ateesh6800 said:


> As a linguist AND choir singer, let me encourage you to *just ignore the double dots*.
> Kodály used them to indicate the "zárt e" sound, but that sound is basically _never reproduced by any Hungarian choirs_.
> 
> The issue was a question of language politics. Kodály wanted to preserve the diversity of Hungarian dialects and keep this sound alive despite the fact that it was disappearing from standard Hungarian already at the time. Today it is part of some dialects but is rarely heard on national TV/radio.
> 
> The "e" with the umlaut is practically the same sound as the "e" in the English pronunciation of "set". The Hungarian sound "e" without the umlaut is the sound represented in IPA with a lower case Greek epsilon (a reversed "3"). *But this is really a difference that 99 percent of Hungarian choirs will not care about.* Kodály's effort to keep the sound alive in the spoken language _has failed_. His musical legacy has not.
> 
> So,* ignore the dots *and listen to a quality recording by a Hungarian choir. As a challenge, I tried to convince my own all-Hungarian choir to try and reproduce the sound but it sounded _very artificial_ because in our dialect this sound is basically never used and the people were just not comfortable singing it. Hungarian is a challenge anyway, so don't worry about those dots.
> 
> *A.*


 
This is not true.

At very least 40% of the population uses the open e and the closed ë vowels.

The meaning of words is different in more than 1,800 cases.

mëntëk = you all go
mëntek = they went
mentëk = I save
mentek = they are exempt

And many more examples. Over 1800.​ 
The hungarian language, the speech is not clear using only with one e vowel.​ 


> Kodály's effort to keep the sound alive in the spoken language _has failed_.


 
Not yet. ​


----------



## Ateesh6800

The test of the *cheesecake* (_túrótorta_) is in the eating.

*(1)* In Hungary, most people speak *both* the literary dialect (which, I repeat, does *not* distinguish between *[ë]* and *[e]* *and* one of the local dialects (which may or may not distinguish between *[ë]* and *[e]*).

As for literary Hungarian, feel free to read the section on Hungarian vowels in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_language), which clearly states: "However, the pairs <a>/<á> and <e>/<é> differ both in closedness and length.", without mentioning *[ë]*. The article is right in not mentioning *[ë] *because the 40% of speakers use it *(a)* when speaking their dialect, or *(b)* when speakining the literary dialect with an accent rooted in their regional dialects.

*(2)* Anyone speaking the literary dialect will *never* be misunderstood by anyone else.

This is supported by the fact that written Hungarian reflects the pronunciation of the literary dialect and is never understood simply because context always helps clearly identify the meaning.

In other words (sorry, I must use linguistic terminology here): the distinction between *[ë]* and *[e]* is not phonemic in standard literary Hungarian.

I fully support using *[ë]* and *[e]* when singing Kodály, but we must see clearly that _this serves the purpose of preserving the richness of Hungary's local dialects_.

Trying to reintroduce the phonemic distinction between *[ë]* and *[e]* in standard literary Hungarian is a fun pastime but it is like an effort to reintroduce *thou, thy, thine, thee* and therefore the distinction between *you are/thou art* into English.

Mind you: language politics is not just the dictatorial rule of a political body consisting of linguists who regulate language. Language politics also comes into play when supporters of a regional dialect push an agenda to impose the use of dialectic forms on the standard literary language.

I personally speak a regional dialect of Hungarian that rarely uses *[ë]* because it uses *[ö]* instead of it. I work hard on preserving my dialect as a dialect but would never suggest that foreigners should learn my dialect instead of literary Hungarian and I would never present it as a fact that Hungarian is the way I speak it and not the way it is spoken in the literary form.

* * *

Now the details.



Akitlosz said:


> At very least 40% of the population uses the open e and the closed ë vowels.


 
Yes, this is (or may be) true (I have no statistcs). But *(1)* they use the distinction when speaking in a local dialect OR when speaking the literary dialect with a regional accent; and *(2)* the distinctions is not phonemic in the standard literary dialect (anyone who claims otherwise should present research data).



Akitlosz said:


> "The meaning of words is different in more than 1,800 cases."


 
Yes, this is true. But only in some of the dialects; it is not true in my dialect (délalföldi öző) and it is not true in standard literary Hungarian.



Akitlosz said:


> And many more examples. Over 1800.


 
None of these examples are true in standard literary Hungarian, where we do not distinguish between these two sounds and most people do not either pronounce or hear the difference (because, as I said, the distinction is not phonemic in the standard literary Hungarian). Sorry.



Akitlosz said:


> The hungarian language, ...


 
Please respect the language by capitalising: "The *Hungarian* language".

Overall: when the birth of standard literary Hungarian was promoted, it was a language policy choice to base it on a dialect that did not have a phonemic difference between these two sounds. You may or may not like this choice but can hardly expect to be able to change the situation by pushing a different language policy agenda.

I fully support giving much more space to regional dialects on TV, radio, the Internet, and even in the published press (mind you, there has never been any demand for printing the dialects in the past few hundred years except for texts dedicated to the study of dialects or, as in the case of Kodály, in texts dedicated to helping the authentic pronounciation of lyrics sung in dialect). But it is overkill to state that the literary standard dialect of Hungarian has a phonemic difference between *[ë]* and *[e]*. It does not.

*Attila*


----------



## Ben Jamin

This discussion is very interesting, notwithstanding my knowledge of the Hungarian phonetics is rather superficial and rudimentary. I guess that the difference betwen the *ë *and* e *is somehow parallel to the difference between h and ch in Polish. It is definitely not phonemic in the standard Polish, but it is in certain dialects. Both graphemes are pronounced identical, as ch in standard Polish nowadays, except for older actors, especially from the eastern parts of Poland and some single inividuals. The distiction is maintained however in writing, and it causes much trouble for school pupils.


----------



## Ateesh6800

Ben Jamin said:


> I guess that the difference betwen the *ë *and* e *is somehow parallel to the difference between h and ch in Polish. It is definitely not phonemic in the standard Polish, but it is in certain dialects. Both graphemes are pronounced identical, <...> The distiction is maintained however in writing, and it causes much trouble for school pupils.



Yes, I would say this is an accurate analogy. A similar situation exists in different versions of Spanish in an even more complicated way (ll/y, por ejemplo).


----------



## Akitlosz

> This is supported by the fact that written Hungarian reflects the pronunciation of the literary dialect and is never understood simply because context always helps clearly identify the meaning.


*

Only with the context.*

Kifestettem a szobát.

Who painted the room?

The speaker or the painter?

So we can't know nor understand.

Kifëst*ë*ttem a szobát. (myself)
Kifëst*e*ttem a szobát. (by a painter)


Hova mentek?

 Who's going? You all or they?

 mënt*ë*k (you all)
 mënt*e*k (they)

*The sentence is* *obvious with vowels ë & e*, *without the context too*.

*That's what counts.*


----------



## Akitlosz

"most people do not either pronounce or hear the difference"

 These "most" people prounonced  only one e, this is *ɛ*.

  The others people pronounced two different vowels,
closed e = ë = *ë* (between the "standard" e and é, this is a closer vowel than the "standard" e = *ɛ*)
and e = *æ* ( IPA number 325), this *æ is *an open vowel*.

*Who can't hear the difference between the closed ë and the open æ?

closed -> open
1. é
2. ë
3. "standard" e
4. open e
5. á

I pronounce always either closed ë (2) or open e (4), and never the "standard" e (3).

embër = human
lëhet = may be
veszëdelëm = threat


----------

