http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aPronunciation+tag%3aVerbs+tag%3aAmerican+EnglishSearch results for 'tag:Pronunciation tag:Verbs tag:American English' matching tags 'Pronunciation', 'Verbs', and 'American English'en-USXMOD (Build: 3715.30106)http://www.englishforums.com/English/ImGoingMarryWhatever/zwgrq/post.htm#459436Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:38:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:459436yankeeMilky wrote: CalifJim wrote: A native tells me that it does occur in such as the second example. The native must have misunderstood the question. Does it No. , and if it does, why? And is it widespread? No. "gonna" has to be followed by a verb. London isn't a verb! I'm gonna London is totally impossible! CJ I don't think the native American English speaker misunderstood Molly's question: I do. Or else he/she wasn't being very precise with variations in pronunciation. Or maybe he/she isn't actually a native speaker of American English. This is his answer to her above question: <<What do you mean "only occurs"? If you use it, and it's understood by your interlocutor (um, that's the person to whom youhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatYourName/vmcvl/post.htmWed, 18 Jul 2007 19:39:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:393697kooyeenHi, what your name? What you waiting for? I don't know if this is a matter of pronunciation, but it's strange. I often hear seantences like those as: Whuch your name? - Instead of "what's your name" Whuch you waiting for? - Instead of "what are you waiting for" Now, I think it can't be a matter of pure pronunciation, because I don't know of any cases where the s is skipped. And in the second case it's a whole "are" that is skipped. And I don't think it is something regional, because in American Accent Training those pronunciations and reductions are listed (and they say they are teaching you a "standard" kind of American English). So what is it? Some verbs left out just because it sounds better without? Thank youhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SpokenEnglish/vhhrw/post.htm#371122Sun, 27 May 2007 10:15:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:371122tanitHi, Kooyeen, Kooyeen wrote: I know you won't like my answer, but... what's wrong? That part of speech was ok. My goal is to talk like that. Ok, not really like that, but that was not "non-English", so it was ok in the end (I guess). I never said it's "non-English", I said it was ""non-BBC English." Besides all the interruptions, changes of subject, etc, the guy had a distinctive Welsh accent, which made it more difficult for me to understand and write down each and every word... It takes really a long time to get used to non standard (BBC like) pronunciation. Is that your goal? wow, if it were also my goal, than I'd say I'm half way through speaking like that! Just kidding, I don't want to speak that way! ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HowPronounceAmericanEnglish/cmzmk/post.htm#229523Sat, 27 May 2006 06:03:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:229523califjimI'm not familiar with MLB. In American English it is very common to omit the "t" when it follows a stressed syllable ending in "n" and precedes an unstressed syllable beginning with a vowel. "winter" and "winner" are indistinguishable. The absence of the t sound here is not an aspirated t , as you seem to suggest in your post. I don't recommend imitating this pronunciation unless you live in a community where it is very common. Use a neutral or slightly aspirated t instead. There is an exception -- the verb "want". "want to" and "want a" are both pronounced "wanna" if you are speaking fairly fast in an informal setting. The past tense is often said "wannid". "wanted to" is often "wannida". I don't see any great...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsAmericanEnglishLazyEnglish/4/bhwl/Post.htm#190148Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:12:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:190148anonymousHello Mike in Japan- Arguments claiming American English to be a “dumbed down” or “lazy” version of British English are based on the erroneous premise that American English is a perversion of British English. Any real linguist will tell you that modern British and modern American English BOTH evolved from a common source, the pronunciation of which was quite different from either modern variant. Your argument seems to claim that British English is somehow standardized and has not changed over the years when in reality that today it is just as different from the pre-colonial English as American. In fact, most scholars point to a phenomenon known as ‘retention’ in which the colonies actually retain the linguistic styles of the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheWordAint/mwcw/post.htm#63620Mon, 27 Dec 2004 12:35:18 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:63620mister micawberFrom Merriam Webster's : AIN'T Etymology: contraction of are not 1 : am not : are not : is not 2 : have not : has not 3 : do not : does not : did not -- used in some varieties of Black English Usage: Although widely disapproved as nonstandard and more common in the habitual speech of the less educated, 'ain't' in senses 1 and 2 is flourishing in American English. It is used in both speech and writing to catch attention and to gain emphasis . It is used especially in journalistic prose as part of a consistently informal style . This informal ain't is commonly distinguished from habitual ain't by its frequent occurrence in fixed constructions and phrases . In fiction ain't is used for purposes of characterization; in...http://www.englishforums.com/English/HowToPronounceUse/jncp/post.htmWed, 29 Sep 2004 14:11:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:48023teacher ericIn American English, 'use' is pronounced 2 ways. If it's used as a noun, the final sound is an 's', if used as a verb, the final sound is a 'z'. May I use /yooz/ your car? That gadget has only one use /yoos/. But then again, we're not supposed to be that strict in pronunciation! So it's up to you!