Search results for 'tag:Tenses tag:Accents' matching tags 'Tenses' and 'Accents'

Re: Native-speaker/native language

Tanit — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:03:57 GMT

Forbes

I remember listening to a radio programme about the varieties of forms of speech in Italy ... They simply change language like they change clothes without worrying about the status of their "home" speech.

There's some truth in that article. My parents, for instance, used to speak in Sardinian (not a dialect, but recognised as an endangered language by the UNESCO) when talking to each other or to their relatives, but they would only speak Italian with my brother and me. I grew up monolingual, and although I can understand Sardinian, I am unable to articulate a sentence that contains more than a few words!

Many people who speak both Italian and their dialect, although able to switch from the first to the second depending on the context, speak a form of Italian that I would classify as regional and sub-standard. I noticed that people from Southern Italy (I have little experience of Northern Italy) who speak also a dialect usually don't speak standard Italian, but a form of language deeply affected by their dialect. Accent is not an issue. I find some grammatical structures odd, as well as the choice of some verb modes, tenses and aspects (ex. past simple versus present perfect, indicative versus subjunctive), and have problems with some vocabulary (let alone idioms, of course). I am usually able to understand the general meaning, though.

Re: were late / would be late

Kooyeen — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:09:09 GMT

Oh my, I'm so surprised! I would never have thought you said it yourself! By the way, you said "If I'd have known", and not "If I'd known" (which can't mean "If I would have known", because you would be leaving out a syllable...).
Anyway, I'll tell you the truth: I've always thought it was non-standard, same register as "ain't". Low register, only common in certain dialects. I don't remember a single grammar book saying it was acceptable. In fact, I only remember people criticizing it. Here are a few comments like the ones I've always heard:

Also in the midwest, I often heard, "If I would have . . . ., I would have . . . . ." Drove me nutz! (Avangi)
http://www.englishforums.com/English/CondtitionalTense/zndwv/post.htm#482524

The construction, actually any construction with 'would' in a hypothetical if-clause, is considered non-standard. (Jim)
http://www.englishforums.com/English/HadHaveHad/chrcq/post.htm#201527

To me, it evokes comical people from remote mountain regions or from city slums who are uneducated and have some accent that most listeners dislike. But maybe research would reveal it to enjoy a wider demographic distribution. To my ear, it's about as obtrusively wrong and amusing as 'them' for 'those'. It's definitely not acceptable for standard written usage. On the other hand, it's not the most awful mistake one can make. (Native from San Diego)
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=97201#3

Would have for had - In spoken English, there is a growing tendency to use would have in place of the subjunctive had in contrary-to-fact clauses, such as If she would have (instead of if she had) only listened to me, this would never have happened. But this usage is still widely considered an error in writing. Only 14 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the previously cited sentence, and a similar amountâbut 16 percentâaccepts it in the sentence I wish you would have told me about this sooner. (A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English)
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html

On the other hand, some people seem to use it all the time, regardless of region or cultural influences, and so it's a common feature of informal English to them. One example:

Hmmm...never thought of that construction as a mountain dialect but normal everyday American! I never knew it was incorrect! (Native from the Midwest)
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=97201#5

That's why I was so surprised, considering you are a writer and knowing you use "correct" English most of the time. This can only mean two things now... I have to choose between:
1) I start to use it as well, feeling ashamed of not knowing is was so common.
2) I don't start to use it, and I start to tease you because it's not like you to speak bad English.

LOL, just kidding. Seriously, I don't know what to say. I think I'll consider the fact that people are actually more tolerant of it than I thought, so it's not that bad. But do you also use it in your writing? You know, just because I don't like prescriptive grammar, doesn't mean I don't want to know about it. In fact, prescriptive grammar is part of descriptive grammar.
I'll appreciate any opinions on this. Thanks.

Re: can't understand WOULD

CalifJim — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:55:01 GMT

I think they're using would instead of will because it's in the context of a past tense.

had an accent / saw a girl

CJ

Re: Please, take a look at this.

Goodman — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:19:13 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

Could you please, check if all the sentences below are correct ?

a) In the end of the week, my friend returned home;

b) After the visit, my friends told me that my country impressed them most;

c) The sport classes take me lots of time! (or:...take lots of my time) ?;

d) Since my arrival in this city, I have been having a big number of experiences;

e) Listen! He has many interesting books to show to everybody;

   Finally is it correct to say: She is loving this place, here. (the idea is that while the person spends some time in a city, she's enjoying it so much, that she's loving it).

   Thanks in advance,

Hi Samara, CB already gave you his view, and am going to share my 2 cents toward the questions

Ok bear with me, I am going to be a little long-winded with your questionsâ¦

a) In the end of the week, my friend returned home. The tone doesnât sound right. Itâs past tense (returned) but there was no indication of which week but I presumed itâs last week. So I would rewrite is as âMy friend came home last weekâ, in the past tone; period. But You can say âmy friend will return home at / by the end of the week, not [in].

b) After the visit, my friends told me that my country impressed them most. When we use âmostâ in this context, we are making a contrast of things which impressed us, some more, some less and the âmostâ.

c) The sport classes take me lots of time! (or:...take lots of my time) ?; âtake up a lot of my timeâ

d) Since my arrival in this city, I have been having a big number of experiences; I have experienced a lot of the city since my arrival

e) Listen! He has many interesting books to show everybody- [to] is superfluous in this context.

Finally is it correct to say: She is loving this place, here. Itâs grammatically correct but idiomatically uncommon. McDonald says âI am loving itâ which is used as a catch phrase because of itâs awkwardly uncommon sound, not because itâs correct. We can cay â she loves this cityâ which implies now, thatâs how she feels.

Sometimes, we just canât explain why that is. We definitely can say to our friend âyou are looking strikingly goodâ to accent the point. But typically, â you look good todayâ will do the job.

Hope my answers don't confuse you more...

Re: Words that are spelled the same but have different meanings

Hoa Thai — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:16:50 GMT

Dear all,

All passages below are from âCrazy Englishâ â by Richard Lederer, POCKET BOOKS. (I tried to find an Internet link, but failed. So please pardon me for the length of the text, which I believe would be very informative).

âHETERONYMS â words with same spelling as other words but with different pronunciations and meanings.

Listen, readers, toward me bow.
Be friendly; do not draw the bow.
Please donât try to start a row.
Sit peacefully, all in a row.
Donât squeal like a big, fat sow.
Do not the seeds of discord sow.

Membership in the exclusive club of heteronyms is strict, and tandems such as resume and rÃ©sumÃ© and pate and pÃ¢tÃ© are not admitted because the accent constitutes a change in spelling. Pseudo-heteronymic pairs like insult (noun) and insult (verb), â¦, read (present-tense verb) and read (past-tense verb), and primer (beginnerâs book) and primer (base coat of paint) are fairly common in English language, but they are not true heteronyms because their etymologies are so closely related. True heteronymic pairs that are not closely related in word formation are among the rarest occurrences.â

Richard gives these sentences:

After the slaver had sold his slaves, he could slaver over the money he made.
The unionized stockroom workers stacked bottles of ionized and unionized solutions.
The storm began to buffet the outdoor buffet.
The steam-driven tower pulled the disabled boat to the lighthouse tower.
The sewer threw her sewing into the sewer.
She is now resorting to resorting the mail.
He became resigned to the fact that he had resigned an unfair contract.

And he shares with us this poem:

Please go through the entrance of this little poem.
I guarantee it will entrance you.
The content will certainly make you content.
And the knowledge gained sure will enhance you.

A boy moped around when his parents refused.
For him a new moped to buy.
The incense he burned did incense him to go.
On a tear with a tear in his eye.

He ragged on his parents, felt they ran him ragged.
He just deserts they never gave.
He imagined them out on some deserts so dry.
Where for water theyâd search and theyâd rave.

At present he just wonât present or converse
On the converse of each high-flown theory
Or circles and axes in math class; he has
Many axes to grind, isnât cheery

He tries to play basketball, but often skied out,
So when the snows came, he just skied.
But he then broke a leg putting on his ski boots,
And his putting in golf was in need.

He once held the lead in a cross-country race,
âTil his legs started feeling like lead.
And when the pain peaked, he looked kind of peaked.
His liver felt liver, then dead.

A number of times he felt number, all wound
Up, like one with a wound, not a wand.
His new TV console just couldnât console
Or slough off a slough of despond.

The rugged boy paced âround his shaggy rugged room,
And he spent the whole evening till dawn
Evening out the cross-winds of his hate.
Now my anecdote winds on and on.

He thought: âDoes the prancing of so many does
Explain why down dove the white dove,
Or why a p ussy cat has a p ussy old sore
And bass sing in bass notes of their loves?â

Do they always sing, âDo re miâ and stare, apage,
At eros, apage, each minute?
Their loveâs not minute; thereâs an overage of love.
Even overage fish are quite in it.

These bass fish have never been in short supply
As they supply spawn without waiting.
With their love fluids bubbling, abundant, secretive,
Thereâs many a secretive mating.

Hope you would enjoy,
Hoa Thai

Re: Tenses

Goodman — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:24:54 GMT

Thank you Amy! I was going to rebut the point that Kooyeen made. You have saved me from having to do that. Just another minor point I like to makeâ¦.

In reference to the IBM sentence, whether he is still working for IBM is irrelevant. However, the tense offers an impression that he is no long working there. Otherwise, it would have been expressed in Present Perfect; wouldnât it? When a sentence is expressed in p.p. continuous, by intent its focus or accent is on the duration of time in which an act or process took place relative to another event.

Example:

I had met and dated your aunt Julie who is your motherâs younger sister before I met and married your mom âsaid a father to his daughter.

The normal impression toward this sentence is probably that this dating relationship had been terminated. If this is logic acceptable to the readers, then you may have to agree that this reasoning is also applicable to the IBMâs example.

<<He had been working IBM for many years before he got together with a few colleagues to form their own company>>>

The bottom line is, past perfect, past perfect continuous or even present perfect for that matter, the context must be constructed in such a way that the tense and the logic can coexist without disagreement.

Re: agAin, friEnd, mysElf

Kooyeen — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:08:33 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
Rhyming friend to stand sounds peculiar to me, and somewhat Texan, perhaps. It's definitely not standard.

Thanks.
Well, I'm not an expert on accents... but did you listen to the audio clip? Would you say pronouncing "again" that way sounds southern? I think I've heard that feature from Californians, but I told you, I'm really not sure.

Btw, I read something about "phonemic and non-phonemic Ã¦ tensing" on Wikipedia... very interesting, but they only talk about the Ã¦ sound:
More widespread among speakers of the Western United States and southern Midwest is a "continuous" system. This resembles the nasal system in that /Ã¦/ is usually raised and tensed to [eÉ] before nasal consonants, but instead of a sharp divide between high tense [eÉ] before nasals and low lax [Ã¦] before other consonants, allophones of /Ã¦/ occupy a continuum of varying degrees of height and tenseness between those two extremes, with a variety of phonetic and phonological factors interacting (sometimes differently in different dialects) to determine the height and tenseness of any particular example of /Ã¦/.

Nothing about "e" as in "bed"...

Re: There ---> Thur

CalifJim — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 02:57:44 GMT

...
I noticed that all reduced sounds are not reduced to a fixed and definite sound, but they can take infinite kinds of schwas (schwas that tend e as in in bed, or that tend to i like in bid, or tend to u like in put...). Yup. Infinite sounds about right.
...
This means that the set of sounds you use (your accent) influences the way you hear other sounds... Most likely true, although we try to correct for this where possible.
...
It's not as simple as "reduced sound = schwa". Yeah, what schwa? (I have a post on the five most used schwas in my own variety of English somewhere on this site. It might be among the archived posts.)
Edit: Found it. See Post:130475 I admit that the fifth one (half-tense e) might be debatable. I think this and the sixth one (the unmentioned half-tense o (proceed)) may originate in some different phonetic phenomenon, but I don't know what it is. There's a tension between describing things very narrowly and ending up with 20 different schwas, and describing things very broadly and risking some inaccuracy in the description.
...
Phonetic transcriptions always use the same schwa symbol (Unfortunately true.), but, just to give an example, I don't think the two schwas in Nebraska are the same. The second (final one) in lower on the IPA chart, IMO. Yup.
So I'm afraid I'll just have to trust my ears... fortunately, it seems I can notice a lot of sounds when I listen with my headphones on. Unfortunatly, it seems I can't reproduce them all. Join the club.

PS: I just remembered that another sound that I find difficult to identify is the one in "we're"... I think it can go from "ee" as in "need" to kind of schwa, passing through an "i" as in "bit". However, I don't think it can reach a vowel as low as the one in "were", for example. Think again. I've often heard, "Hurry up. Wur ready!"

CJ

Re: vowel length distinction before voiced or unv. consonants

Marvin A. — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:24:06 GMT

>> It's just that those vowels are on two different levels of intonation (=pitch) <<

?? How so?

>> But I tend to use long vowels where I shouldn't use them. <<
Well, since it's allophonic, it really makes no difference. It might add to the impression of a foreign accent, but incorrect vowel length in English is not so noticeable. As long as you get the tense-lax distinctions down, then all's well.

Also, note that short tense vowels are about the same length as long lax ones: so bid and beat have about the same length.

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.