Search results for 'tag:Speak english tag:Vowels' matching tags 'Speak english' and 'Vowels'

Re: I need serious advice. Help! :'(

CalifJim — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 22:11:58 GMT

I did not read your remarks before listening, so I listened "cold".

Raincoat.
She's supposed to say "Oh, shoot, not again. I should've worn a raincoat". I can't hear that, I don't hear the "ve". It just seems "I should wear a raincoat".

All I got was I sh..d..na raincoat, so you're doing better than I! I thought it might have been should have worn, but it was just a guess.

Icecream.
She's supposed to say... "You guys want any dessert?" - Is that understandable? Hmmm...

It took me three or four tries before I heard it, but yes, it was understandable once I realized what she was saying. By the way, I hear the zh sound here: What flavor(z)-zhoo have? The hyphen represents a microsecond break of some sort that I think represents the d.

Tape.
Here's an example of "not releasing a final consonant". --- "Get me that tape," she says, she wants to say. But there's no P at all, so it could be "tate", "tay", whatever. So my opinion is that in cases like these you understand only because you already know what the other is going to say, not because you hear the "sounds". I wonder how children learn to speak English, how they get to know what sounds are at the end of a word, since you can't hear them. They probably heard those sounds on some occasion when someone released the final consonants... ">

I heard the p both times. The second one was stronger. Do you think, as a native speaker, I was just imagining it? Hmm. Seemed real to me.

Killme.
I aready asked about this... I was told "no", well, here's a "yes" for you... ">
I asked if the vowel in HE or SHE (SAMPA: /hi/, /Si/) was sometines reduced to a vowel similar to the one in HIT or SHIP, so that they become close to /hI/, /SI/. I was told "no".
Well, the "shes" in this clip sound reduced to me, and "me" is reduced too. I also hear the verb "be" reduced this way. I hear the ee sound reduced in time, but not in tension. To me it's still the tense ee, not lax i, but it's said so fast that it may seem to be otherwise to you. As I recall, the tense ee ( i: ) of English is never as tense or as brief as Italian i, though, so maybe that's the difference you're hearing. At the end I heard SAMPA [yESidId] (no [ s ]) Maybe unstressed [ i ] sounds more like [ I ] to you? If you also checkthis clip on youtube, you'll hear a lot of reduced "He's like", and even a reduced "What do you mean" (the vowel in "mean" is kind of like the one in "did") ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fGZtrBeDcQ
What happens?!? youtube: There are all sorts of strange things going on in this "Valley Girl" talk. Yes, I hear some instances very like [hIz] for "he's", but not exactly the same -- more like an intermediate between [hiz] and [hIz]. This is not a typically American way of speaking anyway -- I hope you know that.

What?
He is supposed to say: "What? What are you saying?" - But there's no R in that "are", so it sounds like "uh". And the final "ing" is practically unnoticeable. Sometimes the only remnant of the ing is the nasalization of the previous vowel. So it sounds like "What do you say?" What do/did you say? is what I heard, too.
So, what would be the difference between "What are you..." and "What do you"? A very slight difference (if any) in the position of the tongue for the schwa (higher for do than for are) If you release some of the R, then that's the difference, but if you don't... what would be the difference? The D, maybe? Both essentially w^d(@)yu. [wuh-d(a)-yoo] If you get into 'very close' transcription, you're going to find 10 variants, at least.

CJ

I need serious advice. Help! :'(

Kooyeen — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:58:53 GMT

Ok,
I started to listen to more complicated stuff (movies), and... I have trouble!

I can't hear the sounds, I can't hear the syllablles. I notice strange features... Ok, let's get started. Here's some important points, I just need some advice about them, some comments on them. You will need to download a small zip file that contains 5 very short audio clips (a few seconds each).

http://www.datafilehost.com/download.php?file=76d943d1

The points are named the same as the files:

Raincoat.
She's supposed to say "Oh, shoot, not again. I should've worn a raincoat". I can't hear that, I don't hear the "ve". It just seems "I should wear a raincoat".

Icecream.
She's supposed to say... "You guys want any dessert?" - Is that understandable? Hmmm...

Tape.
Here's an example of "not releasing a final consonant". --- "Get me that tape," she says, she wants to say. But there's no P at all, so it could be "tate", "tay", whatever. So my opinion is that in cases like these you understand only because you already know what the other is going to say, not because you hear the "sounds". I wonder how children learn to speak English, how they get to know what sounds are at the end of a word, since you can't hear them. They probably heard those sounds on some occasion when someone released the final consonants...

Killme.
I aready asked about this... I was told "no", well, here's a "yes" for you...
I asked if the vowel in HE or SHE (SAMPA: /hi/, /Si/) was sometines reduced to a vowel similar to the one in HIT or SHIP, so that they become close to /hI/, /SI/. I was told "no".
Well, the "shes" in this clip sound reduced to me, and "me" is reduced too. I also hear the verb "be" reduced this way. If you also checkthis clip on youtube, you'll hear a lot of reduced "He's like", and even a reduced "What do you mean" (the vowel in "mean" is kind of like the one in "did") ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fGZtrBeDcQ
What happens?!?

What?
He is supposed to say: "What? What are you saying?" - But there's no R in that "are", so it sounds like "uh". And the final "ing" is practically unnoticeable. So it sounds like "What do you say?"
So, what would be the difference between "What are you..." and "What do you"? If you release some of the R, then that's the difference, but if you don't... what would be the difference? The D, maybe?

Finally, a point with no audio.
I keep on hearing people who don't use auxiliary verbs. I'd have to say I rarely hear them, LOL! Is it that they don't use them, or is it that they are so reduced that they are pronounced only slightly and no one hear them?
You want a cigar? You got any vices? Ice cream, what flavors you have? You trying to drive me crazy? --- Or is it that they say "(D') you want a cigar? (Ah) you trying to drive me crazy? (D') you guys want any dessert?"

The end. This post is quite long. My problems are weird. Anyway, if you feel like commenting on this, go ahead, comment! Thanks a lot in advance.

Re: He, she ,we

Kooyeen — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:57:53 GMT

Marvin A. wrote:
Then I guess it is the tense-lax neutralization thing that occurs in my dialect. I honestly can't hear the difference. To me, they sound exactly identical (the vowel in beer and bit), and if I were to write it fauxnetically, I would probably write bir. I think it is because we are native speakers of different languages, we actually have different distinctions that we can naturally hear.

Yeah, you are probably right. It's no use keeping on discussing this... our languages are different. There are a lot of variations and accents in English, and my accent is still very variable because I don't practice much and I live in Italy (where I don't speak English). Another problem is the way we write transcriptions. We write /e/ or /E/, but the truth is that many people produce vowels that are around those sounds, or in between. We would need to mark a certain area in the IPA chart of vowels every time we discuss a sound. And it would still be difficult to describe certain vowels, because, as you say, the way you pronounce certain sounds might affect the way you perceive other similar sounds.

Re: What makes English so difficult to learn?

Marvin A. — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:55:37 GMT

and an ignorant American would look at British and pronounce practise (Br. spelling) like practize....

Highly unlikely.

Americans on the other hand, have been butchering it for centuries and should not be consulted when learning this language. It is, after all, English and not American.

Rubbish. North American English is in many ways much closer to Elizabethan English than British English, Australian English and New Zealand English.

Anonymous Australian.

Well, we could say that Australian English speakers are "butchering the language": for one thing, most of you have forgotten how to prononounce your r's; your vowels are quite different earlier forms of English, and your vocabulary has shifted quite a bit.

It is, after all, English and not American.

Well, it's not Australian either.

so it is logical that the more words one knows, the more thoughts one can have.

How is that logical? Other languages can also be quite expressive. Just because English "has" over a million words, you have to realize that many are simply restricted to medicine; others are not in common use and would be quite incomprehensible to most people. Just by possessing a copious amount of words (many of these so called "English words" are hardly native words, and are not understood by many people), doesn't mean that English is more expressive than other languages in all respects.

It (the spelling) was fixed 400 years ago

Yes, for the most part. But what I don't understand, is if someone wants to simply be able to speak English (and doesn't care about reading and writing), why don't they simply use a phonetic alphabet when learning English.

though I'm convinced once upon a time it really was pronounced "kuh-ni-git"

Actually in Old and Middle English, the "k" was pronounced (but there was no "uh" after it), and the "g" was pronounced like in the word "Loch" if you put on a Scottish accent.

Or meaby something from German: einhundertfunfundzwazig (125) - this is correct spelling, there shouldn't be any spaces!!!

Well, it's easy enough to break down, and is hardly harder than onehundredtwentyfive.

You say its easy, and yet you write 'learned' instead of 'learnt' - a classic example.

"learned" and "learnt" tend to be pretty well interchangeable.

Re: How would you pronounce these foreign names?

Colombo — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:40:22 GMT

I suppose demicjusz is interested in how those words are pronounced by people who speak English, so I don't think my opinion here would be useful, since my spoken English doesn't contain many sounds apart from those that belong also to Spanish (so you can imagine my accent). With my nil knowledge of phonetic transcription, if I wanted to tell you how I'd pronounce the words in demicjusz's list (with my Spanish accent, remember), all I'd have to do is copy the list again, perhaps with a couple of changes here and there. Besides, an English-speaking person would not pronounce my transcription as I'd do, so I'm afraid it's no use my writing it. However, I'd like to make a comment about "Fortaleza", which is a Spanish word.

Demicjusz wrote:
I'm not surprised about 'lei' in 3 (I see a parallel with 'Venezuela'),

Mister Micawber wrote:
3. Fortaleza / four t? 'lei z? /

When I've read Mister Micawber's transcription I've immediately thought of an American speaking Spanish with a very heavy accent (by the way, I cannot see the parallel with "Venezuela" ... Perhaps it's because I don't know how that word's pronounced in English). Anyway, I'm going to try to explain how I say "Fortaleza". The fact that -as I've already said- I speak English with Spanish sounds won't help, but I'll do my best.

To begin with, I think the idea of "four" for the first syllable is good. In case you're thinking of the British pronunciation of "four", the "r" does sound in "fortaleza", with what I think is a stronger sound than that of your "four" (since the tongue rolls when saying it). As for the next syllable, the transcription "t?" seems to have an "a" with an undefined unclear sound. However, that "a" should be clearly uttered (it seems to me that Nona has managed something closer to it). Forced to give an equivalence, I'd say it's the sound in "park" (but with all kind of reservations). The syllable Demicjusz finds logical, 'lei, wouldn't be pronounced like that, since Spanish is read as it's written, and so, if you see a vowel "e" you pronounce a vowel "e" (probably like in "met", not a long "ee" like Nona's), and not a diphthong. As to the last syllable, the wovel should be the same as in the second, while the "z" should be as the "th" sound in "think". Well, at least that's how I'd say it. That sound isn't used by all Spanish-speaking people. In fact, I think that most of them would use one of those /s/, /z/ or whatever you call it (I cannot really tell the difference, it's what I would simply describe as an "s", although I think theirs is softer, since all Latin Americans keep on telling us how strong our "s" is). In most of Spain we use that "th" sound, but in the south of Spain and in the rest of Spanish-speaking countries they use what I call the "s" sound (even though they're taught to pronounce the "z" with the "th" sound at school, I've been told).

I'm a little ashamed of this clumsy explanation, but I'm afraid I can do no better. I cannot give clear examples in English because I tend to say everything with the only five vowels I know, so I use the same sound in "can", "but" and "park", or in "sheet" and "***", or in "look" y "pool"... Have I made your hair curl? Sorry! I know they're not the same sounds, although that doesn't mean I can use them!

Demicjusz wrote:
so I added '-cjusz', which, at least in Polish, immediately shows masculinity;

To me, it only shows a very high degree of Polishness

American accent

Jeffrey714 — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:14:20 GMT

got suck at learning american accent cuz some vowel are difficult to pronounce........

need help here!anyone who's speak english in american accent plx give me some advice

One more question,Do americans speak a little bit faster?

Thanks

Re: What is the most obstacle to your spoken english?

Philip — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:03:17 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

I would like to know what is the most obstacle to your spoken english? 'greatest'

I am somewhat proficient in three languages other than English. My biggest problem in conversations, of course, is understanding the other people, usually because they speak the language faster than I can think in it. So, I usually start any conversation more slowly that I really need to, and that seems to slow them down a bit. Vocabulary can also add to my problems.

As for people learning English, I find that the biggest problem I have with them is their attempt to speak faster than they really should, thus making it difficult for me to comprehend. I believe that many Asian languages use far more vowels than consonants, and when speakers of Thai, for example, speak English fast, they often do not give as much attention to the consonants in English. On the other hand, an English speaker will make many (sometimes embarrassing) mistakes because of the tonal system in Thai.

Each language-to-language situation is different, depending on the languages involved; these are problems that a language learner should be aware of and try to get help from a person thoroughly familiar with both languages.

Re: The Hardest Words to pronounce!

Englishuser — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:28:55 GMT

Hi Alienvoord,

You wrote:

I sometimes have trouble with two consecutive words that begin with the same glide+vowel, as in

you use
when we

and I'm a native speaker!

I'm not surprised at all. Lots of people have trouble with some aspects of their native language. To give you another example, some people cannot pronounce 'r' or 's' properly even though they speak English natively. Normally these people will learn to pronounce the sounds they have trouble with almost correctly (or correctly) as they get older, though.

Re: Received Pronunciation & Mid Atlantic English

Colombo — Tue, 16 May 2006 10:41:48 GMT

Tallulah Tam wrote:

I feel that Alan Jay Lerner was not so concerned about his own grammar when he wrote the song, he insults the intelligence of the audience by using the word "hung" incorrectly, especially when putting the words into the mouth of Professor Higgins who as I said, should, and most likely would, have known better. Also the rhyming is bad.

Henry, 'Look at her, a prisoner of the gutter,
Condemned by every syllable she ever uttered.
By law she should be taken out and hung,
For the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue.'

I would modestly suggest:-

Look at her, a prisoner of the gutter,
Condemned by every syllable to utter.
By law she should be taken out to hang
For the cold-blooded murder of the English twang.

First of all, I like your version of the verse! But then, does "murdering the English twang" make one deserve being hanged? (I'm sure I'm slipping up with my grammar here!) Isn't twang one of the things that murders the English tongue? (I'm intending no pun or joke, it's only a vocabulary question.)

I've always taken for granted that Alan Jay Lerner, being an American, would take great care not only over making Higgins' speech irreproachable, but also over avoiding americanisms and anachronisms. As far as I know he's done the latter, but I'm amazed to find ungrammatical sentences from Higgins! Even if it's for the sake of rhyming, I think he should have tried to think of something better. After all, it's his job... But Tallulah, you say the rhyming is bad. Is it? I've just looked it up in the dictionary, and all the words seem to rhyme well (the exact words in the song are "gutters" and "utters").

Incidentally, all the rhyming words ("gutters", "utters", "hung" and "tongue") contain a vowel sound (that represented by an inverted v) that I think Scousers pronounce in a funny way. As an anecdote related to English accents, in the English examinations over here there always are several questions about phonetics (which, more than my cup of tea, are my cup of bitterness). Well, the only questions about vowel sounds I have some chance of getting right are those about this "inverted v" sound. All I have to do is to imagine how George Harrison or Ringo Starr would pronounce a word, and I know whether it contains that sound or not. Stupid little trick... But it works.

Tallulah Tam wrote:

Personally I DO think such a transformation is possible one only has to witness the transformations of Glynnis Paltrow and Madonna who now speak better English than the English. I am also personally acquainted with a Dutch Professor who speaks perfect English with Received Pronunciation and no trace of a foreign accent. Richard Burton is another example; when once asked how he managed to lose his Welsh accent he replied, "blood, sweat and tears". I don't know how old you are, but perhaps you remember The Jenkins brothers Clive and Roy? British politicians. To hear them speak you would not have believed they were reared in the same household. Clive had a very thick Welsh mining community accent but Roy who won a scholarship to Oxford cultivated a Received Pronunciation accent so far back it was almost ridiculous.

No, I had never heard of the Jenkins brothers (probably I'm too young, or maybe they're not so well known outside of England, I don't know). But, apart from the Dutch professor, I think all the persons you've mentioned have English as their mother tongue (people from Wales speak both English and Welsh, don't they?) So I wonder whether all they have to do is to get used to pronouncing certain sounds in the proper places. I mean, when I speak English my main difficulty is to try to produce sounds that are not in my own language and that I haven't got accustomed to hearing from an early age. I simply can't do it with most of them. But when Eliza Doolittle says, for example, that "the ryne in spine sties minely in the pline", although it's all wrong, I don't think she is uttering any sound that doesn't belong to "normal" English; only that she uses them where they don't belong. (Although, of course, I'm on dangerous ground here; I know very little about English accents and my ear isn't sharp, to say the least, so maybe Eliza's speech is full of non-standard sounds.)

Tallulah Tam wrote:

My handy encyclopedia is Macmillan's, and it only lists Sir Rex Harrison, (Reginald Carey Harrison) as a British actor, followed by his achievements. It does not mention his place of birth. But actors are usually exceptionally good at mimicry (although Robert Redford refused to learn a British accent for his part in "Out of Africa"). Sir John Mills for instance was never heard speaking in any other accent but what was considered to be a high class English accent, except if the part called for it, such as in "Ryan's Daughter, but someone once commented that his natural accent was quite a strong West Country accent. James Mason is yet another example who killed his Huddersfield accent to play upper class British gentlemen in his films. The first time I heard James Mason speak with a flat accent (in a film) I was quite shocked! As you say, it would have been "a bit shocking" to have heard Rex Harrison speak with a Liverpudlian accent.

Rex Harrison was born very near Liverpool (in a place called Huyton, I think), but what I don't know is what is considered the scouse area. I suppose that, even if it's not properly a Scouser, Rex Harrison's accent can't be very different from it... Now that you mention all those examples of actors' accents, I realize that watching all the films dubbed doesn't help to learn to speak English, does it? I think I have seen less than ten films in English in all my life. There are some cinemas that show films with subtitles (not in my town), but I loathe them. I'm not used to it, so when I go to one of these cinemas I cannot watch the film, I spend all my time reading the subtitles! "My Fair Lady" is one of the exceptions; I bought the DVD and now I almost know it by heart in English.

(Now starts the off-topic section. My apologies!)

As to the film "Pygmalion", I recorded it from the TV a couple of years ago, only to find that, with those nasty timetables, the film had started more than one hour too late, and I could only see the beginning. So I cannot compare it to "My Fair Lady". But I had already heard that it was much more faithful to Shaw's play than "My Fair Lady". Probably, "Pygmalion" expresses much better Eliza's pride, intelligence, idependence, etc. As Shaw said at the end of the play, "Galatea never does quite like Pygmalion: his relation to her is too godlike to be altogether agreeable" (I liked it, so I learned it by heart). However, Alan Jay Lerner preferred his own ending (which I have found purists and feminists equally abhor ). When he wrote "My Fair Lady" (the theatre play) he explained how Shaw had written a sequel in which Eliza ends up with Freddy and not with Higgins. Lerner also said "Shaw and Heaven forgive me!, I am not certain he is right" (once again, I liked it ). I suppose that's the schmaltzy in me, but I prefer "My Fair Lady"'s ending! As to the scenes that quotation mentions... "Stiff and affected"... It's a good excuse to watch it all again, although I suspect what my verdict will be (I'm slightly partial to "My Fair Lady", hadn't you realized it?)