"Kiu venkis la glacihokean matĉon inter Kanado kaj Rusio?"

1140

Treat it as multiple syllables. Mat-ĉo and bud-ĝet-o. Same when there are two vowels (or similar). Ku-ir-e-jo.

August 8, 2015

SeptimusBones

Your syllables seems weird to me. Bud-ĝe-to and kui-re-jo would feel more natural for me. But that's probably just because of my native language. I have no idea how Esperanto does them officially.

Officially you separate affixes and there are some other specifics, which I don't know. However, when you actually pronounce them, naturally you split some affixes. For instance, I would say /pɔˈmu.jɔ/ (po-mu-jo) instead of /pɔmˈui̯.ɔ/ (pom-uj-o), the latter being the official hyphenation. Similarly, it should technically be /budˈd͡ʒɛt.ɔ/ (bud-ĝet-o) instead of the more easily pronounced /budˈd͡ʒɛ.tɔ/ (bud-ĝe-to).

1140

I agree that Joffysloffy is making it more difficult than it needs to be. The correct syllabication for words generally has one vowel and one consonant per syllable whenever possible. There will, of course be exceptions, for instance in words with more consonants than vowels, or vice versa or when the radical is polysyllabic, and grammar markers are where those very often land.

So Kuirejo = ku-ir-ej-o (the radical kuir- is polysyllabic)
Budĝeto = bud-ĝet-o (an exception to the general rule due to the larger number of consonants involved. Also the radical is polysyllabic)
Pomujo = pom-uj-o (Pom- is the radical, but in practice I do hear po-mo ) and…
Matĉ-o (Again because the radical is monosyllabic) but… Maĉ-ad-o

I hope that this helps.

Oh, I didn't realize I made it so complicated. I was merely trying to point out that the realization of a word often differs from the official hyphenation, because it is easier and more natural to pronounce.

SeptimusBones

@Joffysloffy differing syllables for writing and pronunciation? this is going to give me a headache...

1140

An act of chewing is likely going to be "maĉado."

According to PIV, both work:

“maĉ(ad)o. Ago de tiu, kiu maĉas.”

1140

Akceptanta, sed mi mem preferas uzi maĉado-n simple por eviti fuŝaĵojn.

Mi samopinias; maĉado estas senambigua kaj ĝi superfluigas maĉo-n. Aliflanke, Esperanto funkcias laŭ la principo, ke oni ne uzu afiksojn, se ili ne necesas: ekz. kreaĵo anstataŭ kreitaĵo. Kaj laŭ tio, maĉo estus preferenda.
Krome, ĉar ankaŭ maĉo taŭgas laŭ PIV, ĝi tamen eble estas uzita.

1140

Matĉo (kaj maĉo) is entirely derived from the English "match". I've been searching for another modern word which is similar and cannot find one, yet.

However, don't forget the circumflex or you will have maco which is a type of unleavened flatbread.

February 17, 2017

Smalde

I would read one as matcho and the other one as macho (spanish sound system). They sound different to me.

July 22, 2015

The difference is very minimal. If you pronounce them carefully, the difference is where you ‘pause’ between syllables:

• maĉo: [ˈmɑ.t͡ʃɔ];
• matĉo: [ˈmɑt.t͡ʃɔ];
• matŝo: [ˈmɑt.ʃɔ].

mizinamoPlus

Note that you don't even need a syllable break to distinguish them!

For example, in Polish there is a minimal pair between "czy" (Esperanto "ĉu") and "trzy" (Esperanto "tri"): [t͡ʃɨ] vs. [tʃɨ] -- the only difference is whether it's an affricate (/ĉ/) or a sequence of stop+affricate (/tŝ/)!

Ooh, very interesting! That is such a subtle difference though. It's kind of tricky to do without overenunciating haha. (I don't speak Polish or anything though, so the stop+affricate doesn't occur in one syllable in any language I speak as far as I know.)

mizinamoPlus

I've only ever heard of such a distinction for Polish!

Aah, that explains my not heaving heard of it!

SeptimusBones

This is how I understood these too. To me, the differences are clear as day! Though, to be fair, they're easy to mix if you're speaking too fast. :P

Yes, indeed, in casual speak matĉo merges with maĉo. Fortunately it's hard to think of a situation where the context does not disambiguate this :p.

1140

How about a chewing match? :D

December 11, 2015

1140

Especially since maĉ- is typically a verb, and matĉ- is usually a noun.

Interesting though, one of my old dictionaries has maĉo for the word we are learning as matĉo. Apparently someone somewhere decided that distinguishing these two in writing was more important.

Yeah, indeed. And it's hard to come up with a sentence where both an act of chewing and a sporting match would fit :p… (At least, one that's not totally trivial, e.g., “I like …”.)

I remember seeing maĉo for matĉo as well.

I just realized, that the /a/ sound in Esperanto usually is [a] at the end of a syllable and [ɑ] otherwise. So even if you don't distinguish ⟨ĉ⟩ and ⟨tĉ⟩, you can still distinguish the /a/ by pronouncing maĉo as [ˈma.t͡ʃɔ] and matĉo as [ˈmɑ.t͡ʃɔ].

Haha, that is clever. That also undermines my /a/ sound argument xd, as maĉmatĉo would be pronounced with two short as (i.e. [ɑ]).

Same to me

Why use "venki" rather than "gajni"

February 17, 2017