Search results for 'tag:Difference between tag:Vowels' matching tags 'Difference between' and 'Vowels'

Re: W is a vowel

Forbes — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:53:28 GMT

It is unwise to rely on the etymology of a word to discern its meaning, or, if it has a range of meanings, to insist that the "original" meaning is somehow "more correct" . Words mean what they mean. In any discussion of the meaning of a word it is often instructive to look at its etymology as a starting point, but once you have done that you have to move on.

The problem with defining a consonant as a sound that cannot stand on its own is that you then need to go on and ask: "If it cannot stand on its own what does it have to go with?" and the answer to that will be "a vowel". So you then ask: "What is a vowel?" If your answer to that is "any sound that is not a consonant" we end up with consonant being defined in terms of vowels and vowels in terms of consonants, which is not very helpful. That means you need to define one or the other in its own terms and without reference to the other.

If we decide we shall start with defining a vowel, a reasonable enough definition is one that says it is a sound that is made without any obstruction of the vocal tract. When we have done that we have to decide what sounds in the language we are looking at are vowels. When it comes to the sound /w/ we may have some difficulty in deciding. The tricky bit is (because at school we were taught that the vowels are a e i o u) that at the back of our mind is the idea that /w/ ought to be a consonant and it is difficult to overcome it. This partly arises out the failure to distinguish between the sound /w/ and the symbol <w>. If the difficulties can be overcome, it is not totally unreasonable to come to the conclusion that /w/ is nothing but a short /u/. The articulation of /w/ does not seem to involve any obstruction of the vocal tract. If we move on and look at the contexts in which /w/ is found it is not unreasonable to conclude that it is never articulated on its own, or, as you put it "you cannot pronounce W without attaching a vowel to it." However (forgetting for a moment that we have not yet defined consonant) that does not justify us calling /w/ a consonant if we agree that its articulation does not involve any obstruction of the vocal tract. It is perhaps more apt to call /w/ a non-syllabic vowel - our definition of vowel does not imply that it must be capable of forming a syllable.

If we decide to start with defining a consonant as a sound that involves some obstruction of the vocal tract, I think we are going to come to the same difficulty when we get to /w/. [It would be tedious to set the process out as in the previous paragraph.]

The fact that in the IPA there are separate symbols /u/ and /w/ says something. I am not quite sure what it says, but the possibilities are:

1. There is a qualitative difference between the two

2. There is a quantitative difference between the two and it is useful to be able to indicate when the sound is syllabic and when it is not

3. The whole thing is confusion

It may be noted that any two phoneticians may disagree about whether a particular utterance should be transcribed using /u/ or /w/. To an extent the convention for a particular language may depend on whether that language has a separate symbol for /w/.

The fact that many languages have the sound /w/ but have no symbol <w> to represent it (instead using <u>) also says something. It says that the way that any language is written (if written with an alphabet) involves a prior analysis of its sounds. When we come to look at the language afresh we must not be unduly influenced by that prior analysis.

The questions raised by this thread arise partly because written English employs an alphabet. Apart from the fact that that leads to a confusion between sound and symbol, in an alphabetic system language is analysed into phonemes. That is fine as it means that only a relatively few symbols need to be employed and the success of alphabetic systems throughout the world speaks for itself. However, the analysis of speech into phonemes is artificial (though it does not seem so because of the way we write!) and the natural division of continuous speech is the syllable.

Re: you're or your

Kooyeen — Wed, 21 May 2008 19:29:43 GMT

RayH
How about people who don't know the difference between then and than?
Or there, their, and they're?
Or too and to?
Or its and it's?

Despite being wrong, they all make sense, since they are pronounced the same, except "then" vs "than". I've never understood that very well, but I recently noticed that "then" and "than" can actually be pronounced the same when the vowel in "than" is not completely reduced to a schwa. So it seems to me that in fast or normal speech you have "Better thun me", and in slower speech you have "Better then me". Maybe I'm mistaken though... Reduction and raising of /Ã¦/ to /É/ in reducible syllables is something I just started to notice. I'll post in the pronunciation section too.

Long instead of short vowels

Kooyeen — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:23:25 GMT

Hi,
I learned (and recognized) that in certain words (stressed syllables, in reality), the vowel is longer and on two steps of intonation when the syllable coda is voiced, otherwise it's short. In other words, I am just talking about the difference you can hear between GOT and GOD, for example. The second, "god", ends in a voiced consonant, and the AW vowel is longer, on two steps.

Now, I've always thought that "rule" had several exceptions. In fact, it seems to me I often hear long vowels when short vowels are expected. I tend to use long vowels in "this" and sometimes in "but", when followed by a pause, and that make it sound almost like "bud"... "I know I was wrong, bud... I think you were wrong too".

Now, what do you think about long vowels instead of short ones, when the syllable ends in an unvoiced sound? Here is an example, where COP is pronounced with a long vowel, or at least so it seems to me. If I didn't hear the final P clearly, I would probably take it to be COB. No need to watch all the video... The first sentence she says is the example:
Hi! Today we're gonna be talking about the difference between COP and CUP...

Re: diphthong

Cool Breeze — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:39:58 GMT

Jackson6612

diphthong:
(phonetics) a combination of two vowel sounds or vowel letters
monophthong:
a speech sound that consists of only one vowel sound
triphthong:
a combination of three vowel sounds or vowel letters

The above definitions use the expressions ''vowel sounds'' and ''vowel letters''. What is the difference between a ''vowel sound'' and ''vowel letter''?

Two vowel letters are something you can see with your eyes in a word like soul. Two vowel sounds is something you can hear with your ears only, not see in print: gave. In the last example there is only one written vowel, a. There may be languages in which diphthongs are pronounced even when they are not represented by a single vowel letter.

Re: Phonetic differences between English and Spanish

Colombo — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:22:06 GMT

The previous post is mistaking the /z/ sound with that at the beginning of "think" - sorry, I don't know how I can write that phonetic symbol here (in Spanish the written letter "z" is pronounced as that sound in "think", at least in the areas the previous poster has stated, but it has nothing to do with the sound /z/, which for us sounds as /s/). We always pronounce the letter "s" in the same way, with no difference between /s/ and /z/ (although many Latin American friends have told me that in Spain we pronounce an "s" sound much stronger than in America).

Until some years ago there were different sounds for /b/ and /v/ in Spanish, but now only a few people use them, and it's considered archaic and incorrect as far as I know (we only use the sound /b/ now). In Spanish the letter "h" is silent, so when we must aspirate it (like in "house") we tend to exaggerate it, and say it almost as our "j" (a sound I'm unable to explain!) Another thing that helps spot a Spaniard speaking English is the difficulty in pronouncing words like "Spain" without saying an "e" before the "s". There are other consonant sounds that do exist in English but not in Spanish, like "sh" (which is not difficult) or the "j" in "joy", but I'd say the main difficulty for a Spaniard speaking English are vowels, owing to our tendency to use only five vowel sounds, as Novalee said. All of this said, there are Spaniards who speak other language apart from Spanish who use more vowels. I'm thinking here about the Catalan. In Catalan, "a", "i" and "u" are the same as in Spanish, but there are two different "e" and "o" sounds, and another vowel just between "a" and "e", so there are eight vowel sounds, which makes a Catalan speaking English less hard than, say, a Castillian.

Novalee, are those books and links you talked about also useful for us Spaniards trying to make English sound as such? If so, I'd be very interested in you telling us more about them!

Re: diphthong

Jackson6612 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:00:03 GMT

Definitions from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:

diphthong:
(phonetics) a combination of two vowel sounds or vowel letters
monophthong:
a speech sound that consists of only one vowel sound
triphthong:
a combination of three vowel sounds or vowel letters

The above definitions use the expressions ''vowel sounds'' and ''vowel letters''. What is the difference between a ''vowel sound'' and ''vowel letter''?

Re: diphthong

Jackson6612 — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:29:01 GMT

Definitions from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:

diphthong:
(phonetics) a combination of two vowel sounds or vowel letters
monophthong:
a speech sound that consists of only one vowel sound
triphthong:
a combination of three vowel sounds or vowel letters

The above definitions answer some of my questions.

CalifJim

Note also the difference between a vowel (an invisible sound) and a vowel letter (a visible written mark).

What is the difference between a vowel and a vowel letter?
I just take a vowel as a soul and a vowel letter as a body. The soul breathes life to the body.

Re: diphthong

CalifJim — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:41:18 GMT

No, that's not really a very satisfactory explanation of diphthongs!

There are a few posts on vowels on the forum, which you should search.

Note also the difference between a vowel (an invisible sound) and a vowel letter (a visible written mark).

Re: Petal and Pedal - Difference?

Learner100 — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:18:38 GMT

Is was wondering if there is any difference between 'better' and 'bed or...' in American English. At least previously I thought that the vowel preceding the letter 'd' is longer in 'bed or', since it is followed by a voiced consonant in any English dialect. After these replies to the original post I am in doubt however. Could someone tell me if these sound the same too?

Re: Past and present perfect

Ahelaumakani — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:04:15 GMT

1) Here are some links with better explanations than I could probably give.

http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html

http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/pastperfect.html

2) "An" is easy. You always use it before you talk about a noun that starts with a vowel. Exception: if the noun starts with a silent h

"Is than an elephant over there?"

"I was in an accident last week."

"I'll see you in an hour."

"A" is used the same way as "an" except you use it before a noun or an adjective that starts with a consonent. Exception: if the noun or adjective starts with a "u" that sounds like "y"

"Is that a pink elephant over there?"

"I was in a wreck last week."

"That is a unique dress that you are wearing."

The difference between "the" and "a/an" maybe be a little confusing. You generally use "the" when you're talking about something specific.

"Please pass the milk." (As in, there is only one container of milk on the table.)

"Please pour me a glass of milk." (You just want any glass of milk, not a specific one)

"I need to go to the store to buy milk" (I don't know how to explain why no article is needed here.)