Search results for 'tag:Pronunciation tag:Dialects' matching tags 'Pronunciation' and 'Dialects'

Re: Which language is most difficult language for people to learn?

Kooyeen — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:03:07 GMT

Just some quick comments:

1) It is obvious you can't tell which language is the most difficult to learn, because it's a subjective thing. "Difficult" means you are not able to do it well, but someone else might have no problems. Playing the guitar might be difficult for those who never learned how to use one, but it's pretty easy and enjoyable for many others. So I think I wouldn't have problems with Spanish grammar, since I'm Italian, but I doubt I would find Chinese ideograms quite easy.

2) Every language has some aspects you would find difficult, and others you would not find so difficult after all. All this is still very subjective. Some aspects you might want to consider are grammar, pronunciation, writing, speech registers, cultural aspects, regional aspects, etc.

3) The more a language it taught, the simpler it is to find what you need (more material = a better perspective and understanding). So English and Spanish, no matter how difficult and who finds them difficult, have a huge advantage: they are taught a lot. On the net you'll find an avalanche of websites to learn them, for free. Lots of teachers, lots of courses, lots of material. But now try to learn Finnish for example... how many forums to learn Finnish for free from volunteers are there online? As many as those for ESL? Hmm, no way. So less material --> higher probability of confusion and slower improvement.

4) What do you mean by learning a language? Learning the basic words? The basic grammar? Advanced vocabulary? Good style too? Perfect pronunciation? Learning about the major dialects too? And about the cultural aspects?
So the point is, at what level are you going to use a language you are learning? Maybe it's simple to learn how to say the most basic things ("hello, how are you?") in every language, but how about talking about eye surgery like a professor would? Attending a history lecture and understanding basically everything? You need "mastery" for that, and it's probably extremely hard to achieve for every language, no matter how subjective the difficulty might be.

Just my thoughts

Re: How to pronounce often?

Anonymous — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:32:04 GMT

Oh, goodness. I love it when people throw hissy fits over the way you pronounce a word such as "often". It becomes a battle of "who can be the most correct speaker"...Generally, I'm of the opinion that there is no absolutely "correct" way to pronounce anything. There is a standard pronunciation that is spoken by a majority of English-language speakers, and then there are a multitude of different pronunciations due to differences in regional dialects...so pronounce the word any way you please. If someone corrects you, let them, but make sure to be aware of how ineffectual this kind of squabble is.

Re: If I'm used only to Standard English, might I have trouble understanding dialects?

Mr Wordy — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:26:35 GMT

There are some differences in vocabulary and idiom across the British Isles, and you might encounter some regional words and expressions that you're not familiar with. But the core vocabulary and grammar are not hugely different, and you might find that a bigger problem is pronunciation. If you're only familiar with the sort of English spoken by middle class people from the south of England, and you go into a pub in a rough part of Glasgow, say, then you might not even realise that the people there are speaking English at all.

The native speakers I (as a native speaker myself) have most difficulty with are young urban working class people. In this case, vocabulary (lots of "yoof slang" I've never heard of) and pronunciation both cause problems. I might overhear, say, a group of youths chatting in a London suburb and only catch about 50% of it.

There's no need to try to speak regional dialects of British English yourself (unless you're particularly interested in doing so, of course). If you speak something approximating to "standard" British English then you should be able to make yourself understood anywhere in the British Isles.

Re: fair-haired

Kooyeen — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:58:24 GMT

Hi,
the American Pronunciation you found is ok, and Merriam-Webster is the best (in my opinion) to check American pronunciations. The thing is you have to learn how to read phonetic transcriptions in the dictionaries you use, because often every dictionary uses its own conventions. Also, dictionaries don't give perfect and accurate phonetic transcriptions, but they are more like "phonemic transcriptions", if that's the term and I'm not mistaken. I'll give you some examples:

RED - IPA from Longman: /red/ - Wrong! To be accurate, it should be more like /É¹Éd/ or /É»Éd/. Then why isn't it written that way? Because 100% accurate transcriptions are not necessary (but it would be nice if they were given), unless you want to know all the subtle differences between dialectal pronunciations. All dictionaries use /r/ to mean /É¹/, even though /r/ is another kind of R (found in Italian, Scottish, etc.)... but it's not a problem, because it's obvious you have to say /É¹/ instead, since /r/ is not even a native sound in most English varieties.
As for the vowel, /e/, Longman uses it to represent the same vowel as in "bed". Then what's the vowel in "bed"? Well, that's the same vowel as in "led". LOL! In other words, it depends on your dialect. If you use IPA's correct /É/ in those words, then Longman's /e/ actually represents your /É/, and so you'll read Longman's /bed/, /led/, /red/ as /bÉd/, /lÉd/, /É¹Éd/ instead, because Longman is using its own phonemic transcription, which only points out the basic syllables that make up a word, but what they actually sound like depends on your dialect (or the one you chose to use if you are a non-native speaker).

Pter
I think the pronunciation keys in Merriam-Webster are just plain WRONG! It says
\ \ as a in abut
\ \ as u in abut
\ \ as e in kitten
\ r \ as ur/er in further
\ e \ as e in bet
\ \ as ea in easy
\ \ as y in easy

Nope! If you're going to use MW, then you have to follow its conventions if you want to be able to read the transcriptions. If they say /er/ is what they are going to write whenever there's something that sounds like "air", then you have to read /er/ the same way you read /air/, no matter if you read MW's /e/ differently. You have MW's /e/ as in BET, and you have MW's /er/ as in AIR. Those represent basic "bricks" to build words, according MW's conventions, and are not accurate phonetic transcriptions.
My "e" in BED is something like IPA /É/, and for most native speaker AIR is something that can vary from IPA /eÉ¹/ to /ÉÉ¹/ (I think it's usually in between). Longman and MW refer to the AIR phoneme as /er/, but that doesn't mean you have to read it as IPA /eÉ¹/ or anything. As I said, it usually varies form IPA /eÉ¹/ to /ÉÉ¹/, and you say it the way it's natural in your variety.

Pter
? ? ? ? ? It is driving me nuts!

Yeah, I know... I once tried to understand what you're trying to understand now, and I DID go crazy.

GG
Tray saying bee (like the insect) and add then R, and you'll say "beer."

For example, I used to pronounce BEER that way, with an IPA /i/, until Jim made me realize it's usually different, and the vowel is more like like IPA /Éª/. Look it up on MW you'll see they write /bir/, which roughly corresponds to IPA /bÉªr/ (sorry, it that should have been an /É¹/, but I'm sick and tired of it, I'll use /r/ in my transcriptions anyway )

Just my opinion anyway. There are a lot of regional differences, and I admit that transcriptions in dictionaries can be quite confusing for learners if they don't already know the features of the English variety they are learning.

Re: W is a vowel

Alienvoord — Thu, 15 May 2008 20:59:04 GMT

shaved
(b) I really don't think that /w/ is a vowel-like sound at all... think of the difference in pronunciation between the word 'shah' and the name 'Shaw'. It's a subtle difference, but they produce different sounds.

In my dialect these are identical, but in some dialects they are different vowels. I believe that for some Americans, one is /A/ and one is /Q/ (in SAMPA).

shaved

The /h/ and the /w/ are functioning like "soft" consonants. In other words, neither of them can be pronounced without attaching a vowel sound to them, hence CONsonants

There is no /h/ and /w/ in the words "shah" and "shaw". There are the letters <h> and <w>, but it's a mistake to think that these letters are somehow determining which vowels you have in these words.

Re: Schooch over...

Marius Hancu — Sun, 11 May 2008 18:03:05 GMT

Hm, there's also:

<> -------

scooch
Pronunciation: skÃ¼ch
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ed/-ing/-es
Etymology: origin unknown

chiefly dialect : to crouch especially in hiding

Citation format for this entry:

"scooch." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com

-----------

Re: Regularising the irregular

Kooyeen — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:27:25 GMT

I agree with Jim. You don't change a language. It's like saying let's ban earthquakes Actually, trying to change something might result in more confusion in the end, because there will probably be certain groups that don't adopt such changes, or not completely, so you'd actually create more dialects.
And also, irregular verbs are not a big problem for learners. It's just a question of getting used to the most common ones, and there are not too many. There are very few, in fact. The only big problem with English, very big, is the fact that there's no relation between spelling and pronunciation. Wee shud rite this way, so thair's no need to eether mispell or misprunownce enything. It ud bee eezy to reed.

Re: How to pronounce asked?

Kooyeen — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:48:38 GMT

I wanted to mention that, that some people axe questions. It's a feature of some dialects (for example it's found in African American English). Merriam-Webster lists that pronunciation, saying it's dialectal.

Re: Australian/British/American pronunciation differences

Bldudas — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:27:19 GMT

Anonymous
Here are my comments. The parentheses indicate that something is not part of General American-like dialects or RP, but is found in certain regional dialects..
CAR -- American R's are always pronounced, British R's are not.
In General American vs. RP, yes, (but there are non-rhotic American dialects on the East coast, and rhotic British dialects.)
NO -------- British is /ÉÊ/, American is /oÊ/
Some British dialects have /o/. Some American dialects have /o/. (Some American dialects have /ÉÊ/.)
NOT ------ British is /É/, American is /É/
Actually in about 40% of the country "not" can have /É/ or /É/ used interchangeably.
NOT -- British final T's are released, American final T's are not.
yeah
LAW ----- In BrE it's /o/, in AmE it's either /É/ or /É/
Actually I belive RP has /O:/ rather than /o/. (In the Boston Brahmin accent it can also be /O:/)
CLASS --- Some vowels that are /É/ in BrE, in AmE are /Ã¦/
Some people in the West can shift /Ã¦/ to /a/. (Some dialects in Boston have a similar trap-bath split.)
BETTY --- In BrE there are no tapped T's, in AmE there are.
From what I've heard, occasionally BrE speakers use tapped t's.
NOW ----- In BrE it's more like /ÉÊ/, in AmE it's more like /Ã¦Ê/
Actually General American has /aÊ/. Some regional dialects have /Ã¦Ê/.

I agree with you. Where I am from we have /ÉÊ/ and LAW sounds to me as /É/ though.

From what I heard from Austrailians, they sound sort of like a mix of British accents. I don't know. Maybe it is me.

Re: wong more time

CalifJim — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 02:53:27 GMT

because of my dialect, where all final N's are pronunced like English NG's.

Hmm. You must be from the northwest section of Italy. Yes? Piedmont area? bang for bene?
__________

Oh, I'd like to ask wong more thing. If people in fast speech say "wom more", is it because the N becomes very weak and it's practically impossible to hear it (--> won-more), or is it because the N disappears completely for real? (wom-more) If that is the case and the N actually disappears completely, then the tip of the tongue shouldn't even move while saying "one more".

You may be "digging too deep". These are just the usual gradations of reduction, common to all such variants in pronunciation, and as far as general principles are concerned, there is nothing special about this case.
In the first level of reduction, the N becomes weak. The tongue moves into the position for N and then into the position for M, but whether the N becomes audible is just the random effect of the exact amount of force of the air pressure, the exactness of the positioning of the tongue, the speed of articulation, and a thousand other parameters which are only microscopically measurable. The most drastic level of reduction is the one you describe last -- where the N disappears completely and the lack of motion of the tongue is as you describe it.
Any and all of these variants are within the realm of "speaking English".

CJ