I uncovered this today via a referral:

(there's a word for that?)
Two, actually. There's also epicaricacy.

My understanding is that they are different. Misfortunes aren't necessarily the same as troubles.
I think I would use epicaricacy for something like someone slipping on a banana skin (a misfortune or accident), and schadenfreude for something relating to a persoanl trouble (although I suppose a car breakdown could be misfortune or trouble, so perhaps I'm talking rubbish ).

this rubbish actually brought me some joy at the thought that someone is taking the trouble to establish shadings for these two words.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tsuwm,

That is an interesting distinction. One more reason for "epicaricacy" to be in the OED!

I must say, it is hard to distinguish misfortune from personal trouble so I don't know if that difference will catch on. Aren't you in personal trouble if you slip on a banana peel?

In my mind, (and this is probably only I who does this!), "schadenfreude" is more dastardly than "epicaricacy." To me "schadenfreude" would describe our enemies' joy when the twin towers were hit, whereas "epicaricacy" is more chuckling when someone trips as he is going to give a presentation.

Interestingly, my logophile friend sent me a word that he had found which means the opposite of "epicaricacy" or "schadenfreude," and that is "mudita." I did find that wordnerd had posted about it once on this site, though it was only really mentioned in a footnote. Here is the one online site that defines it. Now it is from a site of Pali or Budhist terms, so it isn't an English term. According to wordnerd's post, there isn't an English word for the concept of 'delight in the happiness of others.'

there is a word that comes close: macarism means roughly beatitude, but I've seen it generalized as pleasure in another's joy. (coincidentally, this is part of next week's wwftd theme.)

Arrrghh!

I made the post on the APS site about epicaricacy with the link to tsuwm's site. It was done tongue-in-cheek, and I hardly expected the outpouring of rubbish in the reply.

Now it's followed me back to Wordcraft!

It is true that your sins will find you out!

there is a word that comes close: macarism means roughly beatitude, but I've seen it generalized as pleasure in another's joy. (coincidentally, this is part of next week's wwftd theme.)

Now this is really embarrassing! Guess who posted "macarism" as a word for everyone in the Bluffing game? ME! Duh!

You are right, tsuwm; that is about as close as one can come to an antonym for "epicaricacy," though arnie doesn't agree. Arnie, I have to disagree with you on this one because it is opposite of the concept behind "epicaricacy."

I made the post on the APS site about epicaricacy with the link to tsuwm's site. It was done tongue-in-cheek, and I hardly expected the outpouring of rubbish in the reply.

This time, arnie, you can't blame me! I knew the person who posted it had to be from the UK because of the use of "rubbish." How did you come to the distinction between "misfortune" and "personal trouble?" Or did you hear it from someplace else?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

unless I am mistaken, arnie merely posted the link; the rubbish was posted by someone still unknown to us.

arnie:

I just found this site about "mudita" and have commented on the similarity of "macarism."

I didn't see your comment... did you get censored??

I think I may have been! It was a very benign comment, and I was about to write the Joshua Zader to ask what's up. It could have been a computer glitch, I suppose.

Well, thank goodness! I just got a note from the wife of the site's administrator saying that her husband is out of town and will approve my comment as soon as he has access.

I have never had an internet comment censored, and I would hate for this to be the first time!

epicaricacy is a new word for me. What joy! In reading the discussion I am reminded of two Yiddish terms (pardon my spelling):

Nachus - which is the joy one gets from the accomplishments of others, usually your children and/or grandchildren... and

Tsurus - which is the aggravation that others cause you, again usually your children -- though tsurus is often more general. The woes of the world.

I am reminded of two Yiddish terms

Two very interesting words:

nakhes 'pleasure, satisfaction, proud enjoyment' < Hebrew nacheth 'quietness, rest, gratification, pleasure'< n.w.ch 'to rest'.

tsore (pl. tsores) 'trouble, distress, calamity, affliction, plight, woe; aggravation, misery' < Hebrew tzorah 'trouble, sorrow, distress, woe, grief' < tz.r.r 'to show hostility toward, vex, oppress'.

(A note: I usually use the YIVO system of transliteration of Yiddish words, but in the case of Hebrew or Aramaic words, I simply use Weinreich's phonological transcription of the Ashkenazic pronuciation.)

Well, finally my response is posted on that Mudita Journal. At least it wasn't censored. I gave Joshua, the person who runs the site, the URL to our discussion.

I have to think that wordcraft has some of the best Internet discussion on the distinction between "schadenfreude," "epicaricacy," "macarism," and "mudita."

I had an interesting discussion with my daughter today.

We had read an item where a woman bought 4 inch, stiletto heels. She was about to cross a street and saw some cute men on the other side, so she decided to sway her hips and walk sexily. However, her new heel got stuck in the sidewalk crack, and she fell. I thought that was hilarious, and my daughter accused me of being schadenfreude-like. Naturally, I perked up. I said, "Don't you mean "epicaricacy?" Not knowing my obsession to "epicaricacy," she gloated saying, "You don't know what 'schadenfreude' means? She obviously asked the wrong person!

Not knowing my obsession to "epicaricacy," she gloated saying, "You don't know what 'schadenfreude' means? She obviously asked the wrong person!

This is the price one pays for using a non-standard vocabulary, but you keep on keeping on.

In spite of the many pages of learned discussion devotes to this topic and the very good claims that epicaricacy undoubtedly has for being the better word, I will not use it for one simple reason.

Scadenfreude is far easier to pronounce.

Richard, I agree, and it's rare to be able to say that about a German word! As I've said elsewhere, epicaricacy also reminds me uncomfortably of ipecac!

Scadenfreude is far easier to pronounce.

Oh, I completely disagree. You just look at "epicaricacy," and you know how to pronounce it. Where else is there to go?

However, I heard a number of people pronounce 'schadenfreude' with a long "a." In fact, until I got into the word, I pronounced it that way.

An interesting sidenote is that my daughter said she would never use 'epicaricacy' because she wouldn't want to be pretentious. Now, I didn't have the heart to ask her if she know its meaning, but I assume she didn't...if you are all correct that it is so rare.

Quote: Scadenfreude is far easier to pronounce.

And to spell, also?

As to pronunciation, see separate poll I'm starting in Q&A.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Scadenfreude is far easier to pronounce.

Oh, I completely disagree. You just look at "epicaricacy," and you know how to pronounce it. Where else is there to go?

---

right.. /ep eh car IK eh cy/

jheem says tsore (pl. tsores) 'trouble, distress, calamity, affliction, plight, woe; aggravation, misery'

The singular is rarely used, for trouble is rarely singular. And there is a lovely Yiddish saying:
Kleiner kinder, klainer tsures; groisser kinder, groisser tsures.
Little children, little problems; big children, big problems.

The transliteration you give may mislead one on the pronunciation. The usual pronunciation rhymes with 'juris', not with 'boris'. The on-line dictionaries recognize this, rendering the word as tsuris rather than 'tsoris' or 'tsores'. Google has far more hits for the 'tsuris' rendering.

The transliteration you give may mislead one on the pronunciation.

Well, as I said, the transliteration I gave isn't mine but that of Uriel Weinreich, famous linguist and son of the famous Max Weinreich, even more famous Yiddish linguist. The word being a Hebrew is written in Yiddish without vowels, so there's no help there: ts.r.th. I know that the Weinreichs were both involved with YIVO and involved with the standardization of Yiddish orthography, which like all writing systems involved many compromizes. That having been said, I've usually heard tsuris, but again, a lot of Yiddish words that have made their way into English, have had their pronunciation changed. I know of two major dialects of what is called East Yiddish: the Polish and the Lithuanian. They both differ phonologically from one another. (shufitz, I'm not saying you're wrong, just explaining why I used the transliteration that I did.)

Quote "...However, I heard a number of people pronounce 'schadenfreude' with a long "a." In fact, until I got into the word, I pronounced it that way..."

German is a phonetic language with few expections to its rules. Schadenfreude is pronounced with a long a in Schaden and the freude bit is prounounced rather like "froyder".

Epicaricacy may be phonetic but it's an awkward 6-syllable word. Schadenfreude has only four syllables and I find it easier to pronounce.

froyder

Only if you're speaking British English, in American English is sounds more like fryoduh with a schwa st the end, and not rhotacized thank you very much as it would be in most US Englishes. And I assume your "long a" means a long German a, and not what most anglophones would call a long a, which is really the diphthong /ei/. A propos of notrhing, I love the short moment of cognitive dissonance when I hear a German pronounce Freud /froyt/ (with that r as close to your uvula as possible) or Einstein /aynshtayn/. Up there with Russians talking about Eisenstein /eyz@nshteyn/.

And I assume your "long a" means a long German a, and not what most anglophones would call a long a,

Well, since it is an English word, being in the OED and all, I can only assume that Richard means a long "a" in English...which means of course that he mispronounces it.

As I have posted elsewhere, you can hear how an American should pronounce the word here. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=schadenfreude

That is identical to the UK ponunciation apart from the slight US "twang"

The long "a" is as used in "father" in both the US and UK pronunciation - not the dipthong "a" as in "way"

The long "a" is as used in "father" in both the US and UK pronunciation - not the dipthong "a" as in "way"

Unfortunately this is the problem with giving pronunciations in ad hoc transcriptions rather than using a standard like SAMPA or IPA as I usually do or simply giving a URL as Richard did. Calling some sound in English a "long a" runs the risk of people thinking that you mean /eI/ as opposed to /Q/ (in SAMPA). If you have to call it something, rather than cite it, it would be best to call it by its Unicode name or its IPA designation: Latin small letter alpha or low back unrounded vowel.

So, to translate what you said, jheem, for us mere mortals: What we in the U.S. consider a long "a" (as in "fate"), those in the U.K. don't? To me, the line above an "a," as with "fate," makes it long; the 2 dots above the "a," means it sounds like the "a" in "father." U.K. English doesn't follow that?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote, 16 August: "Scadenfreude is far easier to pronounce."
quote, 18 August: "Schadenfreude ... I find it easier to pronounce."

Ah! A key difference!

PS to jheem: I never for a moment doubted your intention on the transliteration posts. No problem at all.

So, to translate what you said, jheem, for us mere mortals, what we in the U.S. consider a long "a" (as in "fate"), those in the U.K. don't?

What I mean to say is that most dictionaries and most of the people who post on this board, use an ad hoc, and to me undisclosed, phonemic transcription system. Linguists have spent a lot of time and effort inventing the IPA, and indeed, the Unicode organziation has gone to great lengths to make sure that IPA glyphs made it into the Unicode standard. There's really no rational reason why anybody gives two hoots about how words are pronounced should use anything but the IPA (in Unicode) or an ASCII scheme like SAMPA which merely maps the IPA onto 8-bit ASCII characters.

Now, let's talk about long vowels in English, Old/Middle English, New High German, and Latin. Old English, New High German, and Classical Latin all had something that modern English does not have: vowel quantity, or long vs short vowels. An a with a macron over it was the way Latin finally chose to indicate graphemically vowel length. In Latin, Old English, and German vowels keep the same quality (pronuciation) but change in quantity (length or duration that the vowel lasts). Between Middle English and modern English something wonderful happened. Long vowels changed in quality, i.e., how they werre pronounced. Take the five usual vocalic suspects in English: a, e, i, o, u. In Old and Middle English these vowels were basically pronounced how the same Italian or Spanish vowels are today. But in modern English, what used to be long vowels in Old/Middle English came to be pronounced as the following SAMPA vowels: /eI/, /i:/, /aI/, /@u/, /ju/ (as in the words fate, feet, fight, boat, union). In the scarey old days of the last century, it was common to tell children in what used to be called grammar school that these were the English long vowels, but in fact, they are all diphthongs. German still has long and short vowels. Usually this is indicated in the orthography by doubling the vowel (as in Haar 'hair') or putting an h after the vowel (as in Ehre 'honour'). Latin as I said above uses a macron (the line over long vowels) or a breve (over short ones).

Using the macron over an a to indicate /eI/ and a dieresis to indicate /Q/ is less than optimal because different dictionaries and different people do it differently. There's a standard. Use it.

That clears it up for me.

There's a standard. Use it. Perhaps it should be taught in schools then. I surely wasn't taught that way, nor were my children. Perhaps that has changed in the last few years? Why don't dictionaries change, too?

Perhaps the linguists of the world need to do more to effect this change. Knowledge that is not disseminated hardly is worth much.

Now, I have some studying to do! I am sure this all makes sense to you linguists. However, those sites are pure gibberish to me!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Quote "...There's really no rational reason why anybody gives two hoots about how words are pronounced should use anything but the IPA (in Unicode) or an ASCII scheme like SAMPA which merely maps the IPA onto 8-bit ASCII characters...."

I think the real reason is that few people, apart from professional linguists, know these schemes. Sadly neither is taught at schools in the UK (although I did learn a simplified phonetic alphabet when I learnt French - at my Grammar School!)

It is very refreshing to have the privilege of learned and valuable input of experts on this board since I suspect that most who post here are, like me, just enthusiastic amateurs.

Treat us gently.

Sorry about my little outburst. The IPA and SAMPA both have rather nice websites, and it is my opinion that any college grad who gave it a couple of hours could learn the scheme. For their own language. Learning how to transcribe foreign languages could definitely take longer. Again, sorry.

Well I know the IPA thoroughly and SAMPA slightly and though I hate being required to teach them to complete beginners in EFL or ESOL (who I feel have enough on their plate learning one new alphabet without complicating matters with a second one - but that's just my opinion) I do think that we run up against the same wall when we try to teach them via a written medium such as this.
For example this is from the SAMPA site

quote:

---

The free vowels comprise monophthongs and diphthongs, although no hard and fast line can be drawn between these categories. They can be placed in three groups according to their final quality: i: eI aI OI, u: @U aU, 3: A: O: I@ e@ U@. They are exemplified as follows:
i: ease i:z
eI raise reIz
aI rise raIz
OI noise nOIz

---

All very well but someone who has never had the sounds explained to them rather than being shown them written down has no way of knowing how the example sounds are supposed to be pronounced.
What if Kalleh, or whoever, doesn't pronounce "raise" as /reIz/ but pronounces it as /r(z/ then they will, from the example believe that /eI/ is the symbol for /(/ and consequently misunderstand every subsequent spelling shown with /eI/

IPA and SAMPA are fine but by their nature they HAVE to be explained in person, it simply isn't possible to learn them from any form of written text.

Quote "...IPA and SAMPA are fine but by their nature they HAVE to be explained in person, it simply isn't possible to learn them from any form of written text..."

Indeed. And this is the case with so many things. Words on their own mean nothing unless it is possible to explain their concept by example. How would you explain the concept of "green" to a blind person? It's not possible to show by example and the best you would probably do would be to say that it's electromagnetic radiation at such and such a wavelength.

So the sound of a letter can only be properly explained by example - and even phonetic systems, as Bob has so clearly explained, can only work if they are taught and their representations spoken so that students can hear them.

I have to say that the on-line dictionaries that give an audio clip are an excellent idea; sadly I have not yet found one that "speaks" in UK English.

IPA and SAMPA are fine but by their nature they HAVE to be explained in person, it simply isn't possible to learn them from any form of written text.

As do any of the ad hoc systems that people use here in dire ernest to show how words are "really" pronounced. If you want to show me how a word is pronounced, show it to me in IPA narrow transcription. If you want to show me some idiosyncratic respelling of English or German words in some quasi-English spelling, please don't. Or please don't and think that it means anything.

How would you explain the concept of "green" to a blind person?

But you're not deaf. And you speak English. And you know how to use a dictionary. If I say that word X is pronounced with its vowel the same as the one in father, you should have some idea what I'm talking about, even if UK RP is slightly different than American Standard. Otherwise most of what goes on on this board is doomed and pointless. I'm just saying that with a little effort, one can learn a system to represent the sounds in one's language in such a way that we all start out on page one. IPA would be best but there are problems with representing it in such a way that all the folks reading these words could be assured of seeing the same thing. SAMPA was developed to address this problem. I think the huge problem that most English speakers have with phonological transcription schemes is the utter foreignness of representing English words not as spelled but as pronounced. It's makes people nervous.

Richard, just think of IPA as my real ale campaign. Why would anybody want to use some ersatz, ad hoc system, when there's one that's perfectly suited (and tastes better) just waiting to be used.

I agree that if we're to use anything then it should be the IPA and not one of the "ad hoc systems" that you mention but I still don't believe that in itself it does anything to resolve the difficulty of attempting to describe a sound in a written medium unless the other person has actually been taught the system first by someone speaking to them. (Even then I have to make the assumption that the other person was taughht by someone who correctly pronounced the various sounds.)

Quote "...Richard, just think of IPA as my real ale campaign. Why would anybody want to use some ersatz, ad hoc system, when there's one that's perfectly suited (and tastes better) just waiting to be used...."

Which makes a lot of sense.

But just as with Real Ale, there is no way that anyone is going to know the truth without experiencing it. The challenge for Real Ale evangelists is to get the unbelievers to try their first glass of good beer after many years of drinking A-N swill.

In the case of word pronunciations and the conversion to a phonetic alphabet, a similar job needs to be done.

The way this can work in a medium such as this is by running a lesson - for which all the elements already exist.

1. As preparation get students to set up a separate folder to contain their work.

2. For each lesson, first take a word (start with a simple one) and then show its phonetic transliteration with maybe some explanation as to how it's constructed.

3. Link people to a dictionary with an audio clip and get them to listen to it.

4. Explain once more how the phonetic version represents the sounds and get the students to save the word, its transliteration and the audio clip in their lesson folder.

Easy. Now, who's the best person to tackle this challenging and worthwhile project?

If you want to show me some idiosyncratic respelling of English or German words in some quasi-English spelling, please don't. Or please don't and think that it means anything.

I am not clear here on what you mean. In other words, do you mean that all loanwords from other languages should be pronounced as their languages pronounce them? I can agree with that. The beginning of this conversation was really rather light-hearted for me because you must know by now that I love to tease about "schadenfreude" and "epicaricacy." However, this discussion has brought that conversation to a much higher level (thank-you jheem, Bob and Richard). I will confess that I was absolutely dumbfounded that all these years I have been mispronouncing "schadenfreude." While I am trying to say it correctly now (fortunately I don't use it that much!), it is fairly well ingrained the other way.

You make an excellent point about pronunciations, jheem, and I suspect I mispronounce many words wrong...not to the extent of "schadenfreude," but in not pronouncing "'raise'" as /reIz/", in Bob's example.

I really would like to learn that system. SAMPA is easier to learn by reading? Or, is a course better?

Thanks for one of the best discussions we have had here in awhile.

I will try to let the 'schadenfreude'/'epicaricacy' debate go (at least until next time! ). I know it has gotten boring for a number of you.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Even then I have to make the assumption that the other person was taughht by someone who correctly pronounced the various sounds.

Yes, I remember in my first phonology class we listened to old 78s of Daniel Jones pronouncing the vowels in his RP. I was assuming that most of us know what the standard versions of our language sound like, and know when we're departing from those sounds with ones of the regionalism. Take Richard's representation of the proper name Porsche as "porsher". I happen to know that in British English final -er is mostly pronounced as an unrhotacized schwa. (Like the -a in sofa.) But in US English it's pronounced like a rhotacized schwa. (Almost like the -ir- in bird.) Well, Herr Porsche's name ends in a pure schwa as far as I know, and as far as present-day Germans pronounce his name in Standard High German. (We'll pass over the other -r- in Hitler's Henry Ford name silently.)

Easy. Now, who's the best person to tackle this challenging and worthwhile project?

I wouldn't mind doing this. It would give me an excuse to play with my new sound digitization equipment. (But then you could all hear my awful Californian accent.) Let me think about it and get back to you.

I am not clear here on what you mean.

K., no, I thought the thread started with a simple enough question. How do individuals on the board pronounce the word schadenfreude? It's been in the language for over 150 years according to the OED. Though, I personally think it'll never be fully naturalized because of some sociological baggage that others have mentioned inother threads. (German national character, etc.)

But aside from that, I have heard people pronounce it differently, and I'm not sure if they're mispronouncing it or that's how they learned it or what. I, and others, Richard for one, know German, and I've always tried to pronounce it as a German would. But I've heard enough people say /shad@nfroid/ without the final schwa. As for people saying /sheid@n/ with the -a- of fate), I haven't heard any, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a bunch of folks out there who do. The problem with the poll, is that we don't know all the possible variables, like who knows German, or if people have never heard the word pronounced and they're just trying to figure it out using quasi-English orthography (i.e., spelling), or where they grew up and learned English. (There's others but you get the idea.) Also, doing the poll on a word- / language-oriented board is probably not optimal.

I am not so hot to figure out who's mispronouncing words, as I would like to know how people are pronouncing words. No I must plan my phonology class. (Which I fear will have to be moved off the board so as not to clash with the mission. Luckily I already have a domain to move it to.)

Also, IPA would be better than SAMPA. And I believe the newer editions of the OED use it. I know that the first edition of the OED used something damned close to it.

Thanks to all of you for being so kind and patient with me. I haven't been sleeping well, and work is heating up due to the product nearing shipping.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:


This time, arnie, you can't blame me! I _knew_ the person who posted it had to be from the UK because of the use of "rubbish."

---

New here, so please forgive this intrusion, but the above is fatally-flawed reasoning, to the extent that, here in NZ, and probably also in Australia, it could be written off as a load of "rubbish". Just because a word is used in a manner common in one country does not mean that the word is not also used in the same way somewhere else.

Quite agreed, Vernon (and a hearty welcome to you, by the way!), but would it be fair to say that that use of 'rubbish' is largely specific to 'British English' - that is, of Commonwealth countries - rather than to US English?

quote:

---

Originally posted by shufitz:
Quite agreed, Vernon (and a hearty welcome to you, by the way!), but would it be fair to say that that use of 'rubbish' is largely specific to 'British English' - that is, of Commonwealth countries - rather than to US English?

---

Say not "British English", say rather "Commonwealth English", perhaps. Every Commonwealth country has developed its own English, many having similarities with the English of the UK, but if you described Zild or Strine as "British English" in those countries, your physical wellbeing may be jeopardised.

Again, welcome, Vernon.

I am afraid that you have experienced some of that American provincialism that the Brits have accused us Americans as having. I simply think of American English and British English.

Apologies are in order! I will now remember the term (which I have never used), "Commonwealth English."

Now, tell me, what do the New Zealanders think of "epicaricacy?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Again, welcome, Vernon.

Now, tell me, what do the New Zealanders think of "epicaricacy?"

---

You're asking the wrong person. After finishing LoTR for the first time before I was 9, I decided I wanted to be a philologist when I grew up. That did not transpire, but along the way, the first language other than English I learned was German. I fell in love from day one, and despite not having used it for 20 years, still find myself thinking in it, at least in fragments. Hence, for me, schadenfreude is the only word necessary for this phenomenon, at least in my weltanschauung.

As for Englishes, my friend, maxqnz, has a list of sites that examine the different flavours of English.

Yes, max has posted here a few times, too.

As far as "epicaricacy," according to our word scholars here, it is a made up word. While I can accept that, I don't like it!