217
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by someguy3@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

Do they just speak faster? Do the Indian words/pronunciation flow better/faster than English does? And they are simply trying to match the cadence?

top 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 317 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

One way of classifying languages is grouping them into stress-timed, syllable-timed and "mora"-timed languages.

Stress timed languages (like English) are ones where the time between stressed syllables is roughly the same. Take the phrase "I went to the store with my friend John". Most native English speakers will stress "went", "store", "friend" and "John". It might not be a big difference, but you'll notice the "to the" between "went" and "store" is rushed, and that there's a sort of gap between "friend" and "John" since both are stressed. (Also, if you were to modify that slightly and say "I went to the store with my friend named John", the time between "friend" and "John" wouldn't change much at all, you'd just slip "named" into that gap.)

Many Romance languages are seen as syllable-timed, where each syllable takes the same amount of time. In French that phrase is "Je suis allé au magasin avec mon ami John", that's 14 syllables, all roughly the same timing. In Spanish it's "Fui a la tienda con mi amigo John", 12 syllables. Unless you're really drawing attention to one of the words, every syllable there gets roughly the same timing.

Japanese is mora timed, which is pretty similar to being syllable timed, except that when you encounter double-letters they double the length of the syllable. So, "Just a moment please" is "Chottomatte kudasai", where the syllables with double-t letters take twice as long. The cities Tōkyō (two syllables), Ōsaka (three syllables) and Kawasaki (four syllables) all take the same amount of time to say because the "ō" symbol means that letter gets double the length of the standard "o".

The 4 most widely spoken languages in India are Hindi (way out in front with 44% of the population speaking it as a first language), followed by Bengali, Marathi and Telugu (with about 6-8% each) The first 3 are all Indo-Aryan languages, and Telugu is a Dravidian language. The 3 Indo-Aryan languages are considered to be syllable-timed and Telugu is considered to be mora-timed.

IMO, what makes Indian-inflected English seem fast is that they're adopting the syllable / mora timing from their primary language and using it in English. That means they spend less time on syllables / words that English speakers would stress and more time on the un-stressed syllables. The overall timing of what they say is probably similar, but in evening out the length of the syllables, they take time away from the syllables that other English speakers naturally slow down to stress. Since you tend to notice the stressed words more, since they're rushed it seems like the entire sentence is rushed.

[-] threeduck@aussie.zone 25 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

>BestOfLemmy

[-] Dragster39@feddit.de 24 points 6 months ago

Thank you, that was a good and interesting start of the day

[-] Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 6 months ago

This is a fantastic explanation. Thank you.

[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Great explanation, thank you!

[-] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 7 points 6 months ago

I remember seeing a linguist doing research into the actual timing of long Japanese vowels and finding that they weren't actually double the length, more like 1.5 times as long (or 1.7 or something like that). I'll have to see if I can find the article or paper again.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago

Yeah, that makes sense. It seems hard to lengthen a vowel out like that unless you're actually chanting or something and are keeping to a specific rhythm.

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Ok, so I heard a thing a long time ago about information density in languages, and that there's a specific amount of information conveyed per second which is pretty consistent across languages, even when the number of sounds is higher or lower. Which means that a single word in English, for instance, would convey more information than a single word in Hindi.

Is there anything to that? Or was that just nonsense?

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 months ago

Someone posted a link to just that topic here. Apparently almost all languages transmit about 39 bits per second of data. Italians use 9 syllables per second, Germans only about 5-6, but both convey the same amount of information per second. But, not all syllables are equal. Japanese has about 5 bits per syllable, English has about 7 bits per syllable. The most information dense language per syllable is apparently Vietnamese with about 8 bits per syllable.

Apparently though, the bottleneck is the brain. The end result seems to be that languages that have fewer "bits of data" per syllable say those syllables more quickly, and the ones with fewer bits of data per syllable say those syllables more slowly, so that the average is about 39 bits per second no matter what the language.

Having said that, I often listen to podcasts sped up to 1.5x speed, and I listen to podcasts while doing other things, so I guess the bottleneck is probably on the sending side rather than the receiving side.

[-] takeheart@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Podcasts, being prerecorded and edited, don't really fit this model. It's more for a conversation with a back and forth where both interlocutors don't know ahead of time what the other person will say. So they need to observe/listen, reflect while also coming up with answers and putting effort into being properly understood. So basically the natural context in which inter human communication evolved.

[-] ytg@feddit.ch 1 points 6 months ago

Does anyone know how the amount of information is actually derived? The article just says “researchers calculated”

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

They were vague about it, but they said something about converting it to computer code. I would guess they just wrote it out as ASCII text and counted how many bits of ASCII equivalent they transmitted. (Of course this ignores intonation and emphasis, but I'd guess they did ignore those.)

[-] bleistift2@feddit.de 1 points 5 months ago

If that’s really what they did, it’s stupid. First, you need to find a translation for every language to ASCII, which will wildly skew the results. Second, there are many ways to express the same concept, which all vary wildly in length. Take “Hi”, 2 letters, which means exactly the same as “How are you doing?”, 14 letters.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

Take “Hi”, 2 letters, which means exactly the same as “How are you doing?”, 14 letters.

It's similar, but not exactly the same by any stretch. But, yeah, it's not a perfect method. But, there probably isn't a perfect method. How would you decide what "1 unit of information" is?

[-] actual_patience@programming.dev 3 points 6 months ago

Ok, so I heard a thing a long time ago about information density in languages, and that there's a specific amount of information conveyed per second which is pretty consistent across languages, even when the number of sounds is higher or lower.

This is true.

Which means that a single word in English, for instance, would convey more information than a single word in Hindi.

I don't think that's the right interpretation. There are words in English that would require sentences to be made for each if conveyed in a different language. But the same is true vice-versa.

Have a look at subtitles for movies from one language to any other. Translators struggle conveying what should be paragraph long sentences of context behind a single word for one language. Do not get me started on double speak.

[-] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Oh, interesting. I hadn't considered that there would be variances in information density within a language, but that makes sense; "truth" is a very loaded concept that means a lot of different things in context, even though it's only one syllable; but on the other hand "authenticity" is five syllables but carries with it a meaning that is a subset of the definition of "truth."

I guess that's why subtitling is even possible in different languages; if there were languages with vastly less information density than the source language, they'd need a whole screen just for the captions.

[-] LotrOrc@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Fairly nonsense If anything I'd say it's the other way around -- there are lots of words in Hindi/Malayalam that you need 5 or 6 English words to describe

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 months ago

It's not nonsense. Information density isn't about number of words. It's about duration and complexity of communication. And it is fairly consistent across all languages. Some languages take 3 words to say something the other can say in one, but those 3 words probably take a similar amount of brainpower and time to communicate as the one word.

[-] da_hooman_husky@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

English (for various reasons) is kinda the only common language throughout India. There isn't actually one non-English language that you can learn and be understood throughout ALL of India, (e.g. if someone from the state of Punjab goes to the state of Tamil Nadu, they likely might need to speak English to understand each other though there are always exceptions to this) so English is very commonly spoken throughout India. As with any English speaking country, the language has changed within India and Southeast Asia over time (there is regional slang/expressions/colloquialisms unique to SE Asia like calling the 'truck' or 'boot' of a car the 'dickie/dicky'). Many of the other languages spoken throughout India are more strict in their phonetics, e.g. each syllable has a specific sound and doesn't change based on the surrounding syllables. Many English speakers who learn in India likely end up using this kind of speech pattern with English as well, leading to a different cadence in pronunciation than in other regions of the world. There are times it sounds faster, but pay attention and see if you can notice if the person speaking is using more syllables or pronouncing parts of the word you might skip over in the same word, but just faster.

[-] Vilian@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago

i didn't know about that side of india, thanks for sharing!

[-] Sternhammer@aussie.zone 3 points 6 months ago

Re: dickie for car boot (what Americans would call the ‘trunk’); some old two-seater cars had a third seat in the boot, known as a ‘dickie-seat’, at least in the UK, so perhaps it’s an old term that still survives in Indian English.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

It goes back even further than that.

An 1865 dictionary of American English uses "boot" instead of "trunk" to refer to the... well trunks that were strapped to the front and back of a coach. (A coach being a specific kind of horse-drawn carriage, which takes its name from the village of Kocs in Hungary where they were popular.)

https://archive.org/details/americandictiona00websuoft/page/152/mode/2up

https://www.etymonline.com/word/coach

In that 1865 dictionary, a Dickey (or Dicky) is defined as "A seat behind a carriage, for servants &c", and a Rumble as "A boot with a seat above it for servants, behind a carriage."

https://archive.org/details/americandictiona00websuoft/page/1156/mode/2up

So, originally in American English, the trunks strapped to the outside of a carriage were called "boots", and the seats above them were "rumbles", and maybe when there was no "boot", just a seat for servants they were called "dickies".

In Indian English somehow the "seat on the outside of a carriage" became the "compartment in the back of a vehicle for storing things". In British English they kept the name "boot" when it changed from an external box to a box that was part of the vehicle itself. And, in American English, they switched to calling it a "trunk", most likely before it actually became part of the vehicle.

[-] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 27 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I work in maritime, often alongside Indian counterparts who speak both English to me and Indian to their ship mates.

Yes, they do speak Indian just as fast. Yes, the way they speak English has a lot to do with the cadence of how they speak their native language.

As far as the flow goes, I've noticed that Indian does flow better than English just listening to it, but I don't know enough of it to make that observation with any credibility.

[-] HappyRedditRefugee@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

There is no "indian" languaje, there is a myriad of languajes spoken in india, what you might be refering to is hindi, which is very wildly spoken.

I have two indian friends that speak english with each other cause their native languajes are so different that they do no understand each other and one of then do no speak hindi.

[-] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 6 points 6 months ago

I figured that was the case, but I don't know any of it, so I didn't know better. Thanks for clarifying.

[-] HappyRedditRefugee@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago

Tbh I know that only cause I made the same mistake and one of those two friends explained to me!

[-] lvxferre@mander.xyz 23 points 6 months ago

The oddity here is English, not the languages spoken in India. It's easy to show it by comparing vowel duration in a few languages:

  • Telugu (Dravidian) - short vowels are 70~90ms, long vowels 180~195ms
  • Hindi (Indo-European) - vowels are 100~180ms long
  • Spanish (Indo-European) - vowels are 130~150ms long (NB: I'm analysing the data for native speakers)
  • Japanese (Japonic) - tables IV-V show some data for a short /a/, 70~112ms. I'd expect the long vowels to be thus around 140~220ms, if simply doubling it (Japanese is mostly moraic after all, and open vowels tend to be longer)
  • English (Indo-European) - 85~420ms

So yes, your typical language spoken in India is spoken faster than English. That doesn't say much because probably most languages are spoken faster than English.

Also, keep in mind that "Indian languages" isn't that useful of a label. It's a lot like lumping together Basque, Italian, Russian, Hungarian and Maltese as "European languages" - sure, it can be done, but odds are that you won't get any meaningful conclusion out of it, you know?

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Well I don't know enough to differentiate "that's a Sanskrit accent" and "that's a Hindi accent" etc.

I think British English put more and longer emphasis on vowels. It's almost like they speak in vowels only. Compared to Canadian English, Indian accents are still fast.

[-] lvxferre@mander.xyz 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The key here is that you'll probably find the exact same "oddity" among speakers of other languages, even outside India.

I think British English put more and longer emphasis on vowels. It’s almost like they speak in vowels only. Compared to Canadian English, Indian accents are still fast.

I feel like you might have unearthed something interesting here.

The English varieties spoken in those countries like Canada, Belize, USA, Jamaica, etc. had plenty recent interaction with multiple other languages; specially Canada with French and Belize with Spanish. On the other hand, what people usually call "British English" is mostly Standard Southern British (up/middle class, around London), a bit too far away from any meaningful linguistic influence.

So I'm wondering if the two patterns aren't actually the same pattern. I'm just hypothesising though, this might be incorrect.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Well British English is soft like many European languages. I remember listening to a video on sounds of different languages and was surprised that British English sounded so similarly soft as other European languages.

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

The problem is that Indian languages belong to three or four language families. In contrast, all European languages (except Basque, Hungarian and Finnish) belong to one language family.

Put another way, Hindi, Sanskrit and English are more similar to each other (all Indo-European) than any of them are to Ladakhi (Sino-Tibetan), Munda (Austroasiatic) or Tamil (Dravidian).

When an Indian speaks English as a second language, it will be influenced by their first language. But the effect of Punjabi would be quite different from that of Telegu, which in turn would be quite different from that of Zo.

[-] MrsDoyle@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

You haven't met the man from Strabane, have you? https://youtu.be/XhGbpatmplQ?feature=shared

[-] Vanshaj@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

I'm not an expert on this, and I'm not trying to sound I know everything, but I'm an Indian and have spent 20 years of my life speaking Hindi, which is one of the widely known and spoken language in India, especially in North India. I think this is related to how the language is structured and the way consonants and vowels are used in the "Lipi" (I wasn't able to find an English word for it, but you think of it as the set of symbols with which the language is written.) of Indian languages. The Lipi for Hindi, Sanskrit, Marathi, Bhojpuri, Maithli and many other languages is Devnagari. And It has a somewhat complex structure to it, more complex than English. Like English has 5 vowels and are used directly in the middle of consonants. But in Devnagari, you can see there are traditionally 13 vowels and every vowel can be used independently or dependently in a word, which means you can have a vowel appended or pretended to each consonant, and that will produce a different sound. A kid in India in his early age is taught to identify each of that sound and he uses all that early knowledge and learning, all his life when he talks. This allows him to create and follow different sound patterns and makes his speech continuous and flow-full, which I think you're referring to as being fast. I find other languages like Mandarin has a similar structure, and makes me learn about them even more.

[-] baatliwala@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Lipi is basically alphabet bhai (or written script)

[-] joel_feila@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

well correction English has 20 vowels, depending on dialect

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

Vowel has 2 definitions that conflict.

One definition is the letters 'a', 'e', 'i', 'o', and 'u' (and sometimes 'y'). The other is the speech sound without any blockage or constricting of the vocal tract. Vowel letters are used in written English to indicate vowel sounds, but because English is a pain in the ass, there's no 1 to 1 match between the 5(ish) vowel letters and the 20+ vowel sounds.

[-] Vanshaj@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

As I said I don't know much about the topic, I presented my thoughts.

[-] False@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

I think the guy you responded to was making a joke about how some native English speakers talk

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

No, they were pointing out that, even though English doesn't use a separate symbol for each phonemic vowel sound, there are 20 distinct vowel phonemes in the language.

If we gave each its own letter, there would be 20 lettered vowels in English. Which would probably make English easier to learn.

This is why "bay," "bat," and "bar" have completely different vowel sounds even though it's the same letter. And you just have to "know" the difference because there is no separate vowel to distinguish them.

[-] dutchkimble@lemy.lol 5 points 6 months ago

I think there's a vast difference in south India and north India. South Indians tend to speak a lot faster.

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

There was a recent paper saying exactly this.

[-] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

I think this is just a dialectical thing. For comparison listen to a Mexican speaking Spanish vs someone from Spain. Very different cadence.

[-] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I'm curious even with the different ways of stressing syllables if there is also a causal link between population density and speaking speed, similar to walking speed differences measured in rural and urban environments. Like if there is some mechanism like walking quickly to get through timed crosswalks vs larger group conversations with less time to get your point across or jump in without interrupting.

Edit: I also noticed as an English only speaker when speaking with Indians who speak English and one or more Indian languages they will sometimes repeat the last sentence you say as you finish saying it as a way to jump into the conversation or indicate agreement or having something to say but I'm not sure if that is culturally Indian or more broadly Asian, etc. if anyone has some insight into that language style.

this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
217 points (99.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35312 readers
1166 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS