Friday, 16 September 2011

English pronunciation for Italians


I’ve finally got round to reading Luciano Canepari’s book on English pronunciation, Pronuncia inglese per italiani (2009, 2nd edition; Aracne). The book is aimed at Italian students of EFL and claims to contain

tutto ciò che serve sapere sulla pronuncia dell’inglese d’oggi, per ottenere buoni risultati nel capire i nativi e farsi capire da loro”.

(‘all the information you need to know about contemporary English pronunciation. After reading this book, Italians will be able to understand native speakers and make themselves understood’.)

H’m. What an ambitious goal! 

IMHO, the book is a very feeble attempt at describing the pronunciation of current English. First of all, the author doesn’t focus on any particular variety but illustrates the features of a type of English he calls “pronuncia internazionale” (‘international pronunciation’) (p.14), that is

una parziale semplificazione, che fonde assieme le caratteristiche americane e britanniche, liberandole dalle peculiarità più strane. Quindi, non è nulla di artificiale, né senza un solido fondamento; anzi, è la sublimazione del meglio”. 

(‘a partial simplification and a mixture of British and American English pronunciations but without their strange or unusual characteristics. This is no artificial model. On the contrary, it is the sublimation of the best’.)

I just wonder how this kind of ‘model’ can help students of EFL understand native speakers if it is a variety nowhere to be heard on this planet! But anyway...

Another characteristic of this book is the use of phonetic symbols which are not approved by the IPA and which Canepari has invented himself. (As my readers will know, Canepari has developed a phonetic transcription system called canIPA, an extended version of the IPA consisting of 500 basic, 300 complementary, and 200 supplementary symbols. This is because, in his view, the IPA is defective as it doesn’t permit a detailed transcription of the sounds of the world’s languages.) Look, for instance, at the following transcription of The North Wind and the Sun (p.76). Notice how ridiculously complicated and cumbersome it looks:


 I very much doubt this kind of phonetic transcription will make things easier for non-native speakers of English!

On pages 141-144, Canepari deals with another variety of English pronunciation which he terms “pronuncia mediatica” (‘the pronunciation used on British and American television and radio’). This type of accent is only briefly sketched and, in the author’s opinion, is all too complicated to be taught. 

In the same section, for the first time, Canepari uses expressions like “preglottalizzazione” (‘pre-glottalization’) and “vocalizzazione” (‘vocalization’), but he refuses to mention glottalling probably because he regards it as a ‘negative’ phenomenon which doesn’t deserve to be reported on.

It is also curious to note that, on page 187, he criticises John Wells’s LPD 3 for providing a kind of General American pronunciation which “sconfina nel mediatico” (‘is too typical of American television and radio’). Too typical? What does that mean? I just cannot imagine what other type of pronunciation Professor Wells ought to have included in his dictionary! Also, what is the boundary between General American and the pronunciation one hears on television and radio in the US?

(If you want to know more about Canepari and his ‘phonetic method’, take a look at his website here.)

UPDATE: The famous phonetician Peter Roach has written a blog post on this. His blog is unfortunately no longer accessible, but here are some screenshots of his post:










30 comments:

  1. ‎"The mixture of British and American English pronoounciations... but WITHOUT thier strange or unusual characteristics." Man, take a stance. Either you want to be particularistic or you don't. You can't just be approximate especially with people in search of guidelines. The idea of the overcomplicated alphabet is funny as well.
    Plus, now that I think about it: British and American. No Irish? Why? Feel left out... And ours is one of the most particular accents in English. Maybe too particular..

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting.

    A couple of thoughts:

    His model will inevitably suffer for it's artificiality in the same way that Basic English suffered and, arguably, Lingua Franca English must suffer - there are no natives of these varieties and therefore no teachers and no living exemplars. So there are no recordings for the book, I assume, (how could there be?) and the only person able to teach such a model is Canepari himself.

    His approach to transcription reminds me of C19th works when the authors were still fumbling for the phonemic principle. There's also an early/mid C20th obsession with transcription which isn't an issue in these days of cheap and easy production and distribution of recordings. Phonetics is more than just transcription for transcription's sake (I hope!).

    I eagerly await the English translation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you, Paul!

    Yes, as you can imagine, there are NO recordings whatsoever for the book. So the whole volume is pretty much useless!

    Also, I don't think the book will ever be translated into English: hardly anybody bought it in Italy when it was first released!

    Canepari has, however, published "English PronunciationS", which to me looks like a very bad carbon copy of Wells's "Accents of English":

    http://venus.unive.it/canipa/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=pdf#english_pronunciations

    ReplyDelete
  4. è ovvio che non conosci bene il lavoro di Canepari e ciò che ha fatto in tutti questi anni.. ha creato un suo ampissimo alfabeto IPA per compensare gli "orrori" della normale IPA, ha descritto quasi tutte le lingue del mondo in un modo che nessun altro ha mai fatto usando simboli specifici (ad esempio ha messo in risalto il fatto che spesso le vocali lunghe sono dittonghi in tante lingue ecc.) e così via.. scusa se uso il termine, ma s'è letteralmente "spaccato il culo" per fare English PronunciationS e tante altre, fonetisti come Labov hanno preso ingrati onori quando lui è stato completamente ignorato.. che c'è di male a render più semplice la lingua inglese per chi la vuole imparare? Una bella via di mezzo tra British e American è quello che è necessario per imparare l'inglese e non ricevere stigma, e io lo parlo e non ho mai avuto problemi, la mia pronuncia è giudicata buona un po' in tutto il mondo, specialmente considerata "nativa".. non so ma vedo dello sporco anche dei fonetisti ultimamente, chi fa del buon lavoro viene ignorato, chi dice cavolate senza accertamenti e illude la gente di "shift" viene premiato.. ora basta, giudicate ciò che ha fatto Canepari in tutti questi anni, per me è il miglior e più descrittivo fonetista che esiste, e non è apprezzato da nessuno ahimé..

    ReplyDelete
  5. Guarda che è grazie a Canepari e i suoi simboli canIPA ben descritti, con inserita posizione per riprodurli, che so l'inglese bene.. nessuno ha mai descritto così bene ad esempio del tassofono dello schwa in contatti con velari, o della precisione delle realizzazioni di vocali e consonanti.. nessuno nell'ambito della fonetica è mai stato così preciso, ne ho visti vari lavori che possono essere tranquillamente buttati nel cesso seduta stante (che non usano neanche i simboli IPA ufficiali, ma questi non li critichiamo, certo che no..).. ti consiglio di sciacquarti la bocca prima di parlar di lui in questa maniera e vedere qualche capitolo dei suoi libri sul suo sito per vedere la precisione delle sue descrizioni... siamo tutti bravi a giudicare, meglio vedere prima il proprio orto prima di giudicare quello degli altri..

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Maurizio:

    "ne ho visti vari lavori che possono essere tranquillamente buttati nel cesso seduta stante (che non usano neanche i simboli IPA ufficiali, ma questi non li critichiamo, certo che no..)"

    Anche io li ho visti, e credo che il mio blog lo dimostri in pieno (confronta le critiche che ho fatto a molti dei libri pubblicati dalla Cambridge, per esempio!)

    "ti consiglio di sciacquarti la bocca prima di parlar di lui in questa maniera e vedere qualche capitolo dei suoi libri sul suo sito per vedere la precisione delle sue descrizioni... siamo tutti bravi a giudicare, meglio vedere prima il proprio orto prima di giudicare quello degli altri.."

    La critica è parte integrante di tutti coloro che si espongono al pubblico. Come io accetto (e pubblico!) i tuoi commenti, anche tu accetta i miei (e senza espressioni ignoranti e di cattivo gusto che deturpano soltanto le tue opinioni!).
    Un ultimo appunto: i libri di Canepari li ho tutti a casa e li conosco bene! E il suo sito lo visito ogni singolo giorno...!

    PS: But why don't you write your thoughts in English?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like your input Alex. I'm always on the look out for methods that HELP improving pronunciation, as theory and transcriptions aren't what most people need. My website is

    www.pronunciainglese.com on youtube:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHWbHlF0kkI
    http://pronunciainglese.blogspot.com/

    I teach but I consider my self a student, open to ideas that work and help our fellow friends.
    Ciaooouuuu
    Marco

    ReplyDelete
  8. ''Mediatic pronunciation of English'' (half British half American)
    sounds as weird as it would sound ''Mediatic pronunciation of Italian'' (half romana and half milanese). , a new kind of a mockery accent at best!

    Professor Canepari can be trusted when Italian language is concerned, but even his Spanish and Portuguese phonetics & phonology knowledge leaves a lot to be desired. He has a unique approach ''I want to make everything look the way I want''.
    For Brazilian Portuguese, get ''Fonética e fonologia do português '' by, THAÏS CRISTÓFARO SILVA instead.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Conosco e ammiro da anni il lavoro di Luciano Canepari. Il suo canIPA è secondo me assolutamente indispensabile per farsi un'idea reale della fonetica di una lingua: infatti, i suoni delle lingue del mondo sono molti di più dei simboli dell'IPA! Tutti i fonetisti propongono nuovi simboli quando ne hanno bisogno, la differenza è che Canepari si occupa di un grandissimo numero di lingue e ha un orecchio ben migliore della media, per cui succede particolarmente spesso che abbia bisogno di simboli nuovi. Quanto alle critiche alle sue etichette del tipo "inglese internazionale", basta voler capire cosa intende per meravigliarsi meno e anzi avere a disposizione un ottimo strumento per insegnare la complicata fonetica inglese; dopodiché non è mica obbligatorio usare i suoi lavori: però giudicare la validità di un'opera in base al numero di copie vendute mi sembra un procedimento un po' superficiale (in campi come la letteratura, basterebbe a far perdere la reputazione al critico più quotato...).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Menomale che non sono l'unico a pensare ciò che ho scritto in questo post:

      http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/online-grammar-teaching

      Delete
  10. Non voglio far polemica e quindi mi fermo dopo questo messaggio: il link che indichi non entra nel merito dei punti su cui Canepari sarebbe less than perfect, e nemmeno tu sei stato molto dettagliato in materia: quali sono i suoni sulla cui realizzazione si è sbagliato? E siamo sicuri che a volte le differenze di opinione non siano dovute semplicemente al campione di parlanti utilizzato, senza tener conto di tutta la variabilità che esiste in questi casi? Mi sembra che ci sia una certa tendenza degli specialisti di lingua inglese a sentirsi invasi da uno che entra nel loro territorio avendo come specializzazione la fonetica e non l'inglese (ma allora chi sarebbe autorizzato a fare fonetica di più di 1 o 2 lingue?). Personalmente mi occupo di alcune delle lingue di cui tratta Canepari e non mi sento affatto invaso, anzi avere un suo studio su tali lingue costituisce per me un'ottima base di partenza. Poi sarà less than perfect? Sfido chiunque ad essere completely perfect in questo campo, e a non avere mai qualche piccolo dettaglio da limare, anche sulla base di nuovi ascolti e di nuove tendenze presso le comunità linguistiche indagate. Se poi non vi piace il suo approccio in generale, questo non significa che il suo lavoro non valga niente: significa solo che voi preferite un altro approccio. Rifiutare a scatola chiusa quel che fa mi sembra privarsi di un utile contributo per motivi più personali che scientifici. Auguri di buon lavoro

    ReplyDelete
  11. Approved by IPA? Most books about phonology don't follow IPA in its purest form for the sake of simplicity and tradition. It might not matter when describing only one variety, but when comparing languages or even accents, a phone classified as a part of one phoneme, doesn't necessarily fall in the range of a similar phoneme of another variety.

    If there is a different tradition of transcribing words in every language, then IPA has failed its purpose since it's no longer international. It's just another set of orthographic rules. That's why there is a lot of confusion about IPA symbols among learners with different backgrounds. Canepari tried to refine the system by making distinctions that would be normally negligible when describing a single language a compulsory part of the spelling.

    Cumbersome? Yes, but it would be no different from consistently using IPA with a bunch of diacritics. It just tells us that pronunciation is more complex we think and that when using IPA, it is impossible not to abstract and compromise.

    Your quotation by Josef Albers in IPA presents various problems. I think you were trying to create a phonetic transcription by using glottal stops and punctuation, yet, for example, you used the trilled [r] and ignored the fact that [t͡ʃ] is an affricate.

    ReplyDelete
  12. PART 1
    I had chosen to keep quiet on the topic, but after reading Franz Hotter’s review (LINGUIST List 28.5087) on Canepari’s “German Pronunciation and Accents”, Marc Chalier’s (Besprechungen 2019/3, 304-309) and Mathieu Avanzi’s (Romanische Forschungen 134 (2022)) on Canepari’s “French Pronunciation and Accents, I decided to warn unsuspecting readers of his many fallacious theories on English phonetics.

    Let me start with Frank Dotter:

    “(...) (T)he book is a danger for linguists and students to be misled completely when trying to get information about German, phonetically and sociolinguistically”. Further, “Canepari’s book shows so many phonetic inadequacies,
    methodologically questionable shortcomings, basic contradictions in the model
    itself, or crooked statements (cf. the definition of variants and their
    evaluation) that it cannot be positively evaluated. Conversely, the readers
    have to be warned not to take the author's transcriptions as an adequate
    representation of today's German variants”.

    Mathieu Avanzi goes further: “(...) (J)e ne recommande ni son achat ni sa consultation”.

    ReplyDelete
  13. PART 2
    The first fallacy of Canepari’s “English Pronunciation and Accents” is the creation of his “International English”, “something that is spoken on CNN and used by many actors and singers”. How can someone accept such a contradictory definition? CNN uses GA, so those American actors and singers. This International English is a figment of LC’s vivid imagination. And he goes on for one hundred and more pages to define the phonetics and the intonation diagrams (tonograms?) of something that he created himself, alone, a daydream that does not exist. This was already pointed out by Alex Rotatori, saying that the concept itself is quite ridiculous and LC replied by calling him “stone-marten face” (twisted word choice “à la Canepari”). It borders on being slanderous, but Alex Rotatori decided to ignore LC and I applaud him for his choice.

    ReplyDelete
  14. PART 3
    Second fallacy, “The Whole Truth on English
    /ɹ/”. The title of the chapter reminds me of those booklets that were given to people by Jehovah’s Witnesses, titled “The Whole Truth”. LC believes that stateside /ɹ/ is articulated using the dorsum of the tongue and in the UK the articulation is with the tip of the tongue. He believes in this absolute difference, which is ABSOLUTELY false. In a very well known paper (one of the many), “Variability and homegeneity in American English /ɹ/ allophony and /s/ retraction” by Mielke, Baker and Archangeli (Laboratory Phonology 10, De Gruyter Moulton) the authors explain that there are eight possible articulations for /ɹ/. The first six involve the dorsum of the tongue, the last two the apex. To test their theory, they used 27 US college undergraduates who received extra credit in an introductory linguistics course. They used audio, camera video and ultrasound video recordings to find out that the articulation is specific to individual speakers and their phonetic needs. Close to /i/ the articulation was bunched (in the majority of cases), close to /a/ and /o/ it was “tip up”.

    ReplyDelete
  15. PART 4
    LC is very much mistaken in saying that speakers in the UK use the “tip up” version and speakers in the US use the bunched one. Where are his studies and his ultrasound video recordings to justify such an erroneous claim? Again, the studies are in his vivid imagination. And he has the nerve of criticising those who use /ɻ/ for the US and /ɹ/ for the UK. Laughable, honestly. Funny, also. When I tried to make him undestand (by furnishing him via e-mail all the articles that he didn’t even bother reading), he replied in a condescending tone, saying that his idea was the right one.

    ReplyDelete
  16. PART 5
    Of course the following chapter on the American flap is also completely wrong. If the articulation of /ɹ/ depends on the particular speaker and on his/her phonetic needs, the flap before or after an /ɹ/ sound will be articulated differently. As a matter of fact, in “Individual variation in English flaps and taps: A case of categorical phonetics” by Derrick and Gick, the authors studied (with audio, video and ultrasound imaging) how flaps and taps vary depending on the individual speaker. To make a long story short, they found four types of flaps and taps articulated by GA speakers chosen for the study: up flap, down flap, postalveolar tap, up and down tap, (this last one different of course from /ɾ/ in in Italian and Spanish), similar to what can be read on the book “Articulatory Phonetics” by Bickford and Floyd, (fourth edition). So LC’s flap (rotated hook) and lateral flap (long rotated hook) again are a figment of his vivid imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  17. PART 6
    As Mathieu Avanzi puts it in his review, “toute description phonétique d’une langue , quelle qu’elle soit, doit reposer sur des données”. LC is absolutely unscientific because he never gives the actual data where his imaginative transcriptions come from. Following Dotter again, “(LC uses) narrow transcription as a partially normative or idealizing means for the construction of language variants. But the situation with Canepari's work is even worse than to be trapped in
    this illusion: he wants to prove fine-grained differences between variants of languages - in this book: German- by way of systematically differentiating transcriptions without documenting the respective data”. “(LC) uses apparently idiosyncratic transcription strategies in order to construct differences between the 8 variants of ''Nordwind und Sonne'' (''North wind and the sun'')...

    ReplyDelete
  18. PART 7
    An inspection of the transcriptions of ''North wind and the sun'' shows that
    Canepari uses a more or less rule-driven transcription for every variant of
    German he defined”, so he creates his own norms and rules (which are wrong) to define the variant of the language he analyses: “(There are many) (p)honetically incorrect transcriptions; compared to Canepari's pretensions, there are also many systematic transcriptions
    which are not phonetically adequate, even if we take the perspective of a broader transcription”.
    I agree totally with Franz Dotter, he couldn’t have used better words to describe LC’s German (or English) à la Canepari.

    ReplyDelete
  19. PART 8
    Another apparent mistake is the devoicing of voiced obstruents at the beginning of a word. LC says “it is minimal, it is not worth to transcribe it”. Please, LC, listen to the examples in Cruttenden and Johnson’s “A course in Phonetics”, chapter 4, exercise 4.1 British English /ɒ/. The voice pronounces “Bod”. It is NOT the same sound as in “bien” (French) or “bueno” (Spanish). They are completely different.

    ReplyDelete
  20. PART 9
    LC wants us to use kinesthesia to identify and reproduce a sound. As Dotter points out, no-one believes that LC can distinguish 1000 and more sounds. Dotter says that it is only an “illusion that he [LC, Ed.] can discriminate the 1000 sounds he defines articulatorily, but also that teachers and learners can profit from these transcriptions. If we took LC’s ideal, namely ''one sound, one symbol'' literally, we would need to create a symbol of its own for every realization of any sound because no sound equals any other completely. I suppose that not even Canepari would like to be understood in this sense. Therefore he would have to concede his need to form classes. He does this by taking each of his assumed articulatory values implicitly as a class and by presenting the classes by his idealized ''vocogram'', ''orogram'', ''linguogram'', ''palatogram'' and ''labiogram'' [imaginative, Ed.] drawings”.

    ReplyDelete
  21. PART 10
    Going on, Mathieu Avanzi adds “Quel linguiste digne de se nom peut penser qu’on peut déduire les tracés intonatifs (appelés »tonogrammes«, ces figures indiquant la hauteur et la forme des tons associés syllabiques) de langues comme le protoceltique ou le gaulois à partir de la situation des descendants
    actuels de ces langues (317)? Sachant que le protoceltique est, comme son nom l’indique, une reconstruction, et que le gaulois n’était déjà plus parlé quelques siècles après le début de notre ère?” (What sort of linguist worth to be called as such can think of obtaining the intonation diagrams of languages as Proto-Celtic or Gallic from the situation of the descendants of those languages, knowing that Proto-Celtic is a mere recostruction and that Gallic disappeared after the fifth or sixth century AD?) Again, the answer lies in LC’s vivid imagination, creating rules for languages that are not spoken anymore or rules for languages that have been reconstructed, that are artificial, that maybe close to what they were or may be totally different.

    ReplyDelete
  22. PART 11
    Chalier also points out that “teaching has shown that introducing further symbols for phonetic transcription is actually confusing for learners. If someone desires more accurate symbols, IPA diacritics serve that purpose effectively” and I might add that despite LC’s profound aversion for diacritics, to explain the “erhua” of Mandarin Chinese he uses /ɤ/ upside down, plus a little foot, plus a comma to denote creaky voice.
    Regarding Mandarin Chinese, one can wonder how may be transcribed. In LC’s opinion, the first /b/ is [ṗ], a lenis voiceless plosive (?), something that I found only in Rohlfs’ book on Italian Dialects (1946, Bern). He might mean whisper phonation, with that mysterious little dot? Without audio recordings, I wonder what the hell it is. The second /b/ is at times [b], fully voiced, other times [b̥] partially or fully devoiced (Lord only knows) and also [b̤] breathy voiced. Which one of the five? Shall we toss a coin five times? Impossible to understand how LC chooses voice quality in his imaginative, impessionistic and always-changing transcriptions.

    ReplyDelete
  23. PART 12
    As a matter of fact I find it insulting that on his “Natural Phonetics and Tonetics” (what a title!) LC has the nerve of describing the phonemic inventory AND THE INTONATION DIAGRAMS OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL! Either it was a joke and there is some kinky significance I am unaware of, or... LC has the illusion of being God, omiscient... You all are free to express your judgement.

    Also, how can anyone be sure that the stressed syllable of the interrogative tune in American English is medium high (horizontal line) and in his mediatic American accent the same syllable is medium high rising? (i.e. line forming a 25-degree angle with the horizontal axis) How can someone be that precise in an intonation diagram? Again, English à la Canepari...

    ReplyDelete
  24. PART 13
    As Antonio Romano put it, “It is impossible to define an unbending, unchanging intonational pattern for Italian, even though someone [LC, Ed.] tried to do it”. I am afraid that all those never ending contradicting pages on intonation patterns of Italian, English, German etc will never be read and used by anybody, but for those poor souls who were forced to write their PHD thesis under the guiding light of LC’s imaginative mind.

    One should ask for a refund if he or she bought one of the infamous books published by Lincom EU or Aracne Editrice in Italy. By publishing LC’s books, Avanzi says that “la maison d’édition ne s’est pas dotée d’un comité scientifique digne de ce nom”. (The publisher didn’t employ a scientific committee to censor the publishing of so many wrong concepts.)

    ReplyDelete
  25. PART 14
    LC makes fun of the IPA by calling it “off-IPA”, as if it were an “off alphabet” (his own words). I would suggest to take a look in the mirror, and maybe call his can-IPA “k9-IPA” (in English).
    In Italian can-IPA might fit (of course in Italian means something else) or even
    ca**-IPA, where the little stars substitute for a grooved voiced fricative (if you know what I mean).

    It is not my style to criticise so severely someone else’s ideas, but since LC “fustige les charlatanes du web” (Avanzi, and here Avanzi is referring to the altercation Alex Rotatori had with Monsieur LC) “et lui-même (Monsieur LC, Ed.) n’y va pourtant pas de main morte avec les collègues, même les plus internationalement reconnus” “LC criticises severely the charlatans of the Internet and also shows no mercy when he slams the most internationally renown phoneticians”. So this time I ought confirm the terrible reviews I read.

    ReplyDelete
  26. PART 15
    Not only he dares pontificate his erroneous theories, but also if someone points out a mistake (sending him papers and data via e-mail, as he requests on his books), he replies in a condescending uppity tone, saying that he is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in his sort of Quranic faith to his imaginary phonetic heaven where he is God, infallible, divine, and the only one able to understand the phonetic intricacies of ALL LANGUAGES, ALIVE OR DEAD, ON EARTH AND ALIEN. Those who are not completely devout to his pseudo-faith are imbeciles, utterly stupid and must perish, burning in the flames of phonetic deafness, for ever and ever, amen.

    Actually, “Ces types de commentaires subjectifs et arbitraires, (Chalier adds) ne sont pas adéquats pour un manuel à caractère scientifique”.

    ReplyDelete
  27. PETIT FLORILÈGE: THE END
    So don’t buy LC’s books. At the beginning they might seem innovative and helpful... But they are dangerous. Listen to native speakers as much as possible, do not waste time with
    k9-IPA. IPA is good enough.

    Admittedly succinctness is not amongst my virtues (if I ever possess any, clearly). But that’s all. For now!
    M.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ERRATA
    Apparently what I wrote between angle brackets didn’t appear on the reply.
    Consider a profound apology made. So:
    Part 1 “French Pronunciation and Accents: please add ” at the end
    Part 11 one can wonder how.... [bàba]... may be transcribed. I wrote [ba˥˩ ba˧], fourth tone + neutral tone but it disappeared. Life is a mystery! Sorry.
    Part 14 of course in italian CANE means something else

    ReplyDelete
  29. BURNING IN THE NINTH CIRCLE OF HELL: PHONETIC DEAFNESS
    While I am here, burning in pain after LC sentenced me, close to Lucifer himself, in the last moments of consciousness, I want to say that my criticism is not against the endless typos in LC’s booklets, but against the very ideas that are flawed, contradictory, without a proper reality check.
    From hell, I wish you all a very good day!

    ReplyDelete