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

Re: What makes English so difficult to learn?

Anonymous — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:30:34 GMT

As a native English speaker (well perhaps not entirely native, I was born in Russia and immigrated to the U.S. at the tender age of 7) I would have to say that apart from the obviously difficult aspects of the English language such as tenses, an unorthodox phonetic system employed in the language and infuriating exceptions for just about every single rule, the two most puzzling features are the Verb+Participle+Preposition combinations and the sheer vastness of the vocabulary. Observe the former...

come+up+with

come+down+with

come+foward+with

come+out+for

come+down+to

Five different constructions which would be clear as day to any native speaker, are nevertheless mind-boggling to someone who is learning the language. Notice how they all start with "come", and then imagine that sort of illogical word-scrambling applied to every verb. Daunting, isn't it? Don't know how to break it to you folks, but I haven't even scratched the surface.

Now as to the latter, I am more than happy to have dictionary.com present proof of this phenomenon in my stead. Let's take a look at the word "jump". I mean, how many possible synonyms could there be for this word? Well, one simple search can help us find out. Here's the link:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/jump

40 entries for the first definition alone. FORTY. Forty different ways to say jump. But when you break it down, do all 40 words have the same meaning? Of course not! Nosedive means to jump into something headfirst, as in a pool of water or (if you're very unfortunate) onto a hardwood floor. To spring is to jump up energetically, with an almost almighty "lurch" (another word for jump right there :P) whereas to "bob" means to make jumping motions without every actually taking your feet off the ground. The list goes on and on. No other language I'm familiar with has such variety when it comes to synonyms, be it for seemingly uncomplicated actions or deep philosophical concepts.

Although English is my native language, I am also a nearly native speaker of Russian (I give credit to my parents for preserving the language of the "motherland" and passing it on to me) and fluent in German. I find Russian to be an incredibly expressive language with just as many (if not more) nuances as English, and its ability to convey feelings of dislike, anger or downright hateful fervor (i.e. swearing) is, in my experience, unmatched. German is an incredibly logical language, and once grammar constructs are mastered, relatively straightforward in its application. Mastering German grammar is a challenge however, and word order is an utter nuisance in some situations.

Just my two cents.

Re: Should I pay attention to syllables?

Kooyeen — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:49:04 GMT

Hi Avangi,
it's pretty complicated, I'll try to explain it better. I'll use an equivalent phonetic transcription to avoid IPA, because I heard not everyone can see the symbols.

MW breaks the words into syllables in phonetic transcriptions according to how the words would be pronounced syllable by syllable, unlike many other dictionaries I have seen. Its transcriptions are different from all the others, and they seem much more accurate to me. A little example... Situation:
sich-oo-ay-shun --> American Heritage, Longman Dictionary of C. E., Oxford Advanced Learner D., etc.
sih-chuh-way-shun -> Merriam Webster
I believe MW's transcriptions are more like what a native speaker would say if they had to pronounce words very slowly and break them into basic syllables and sounds.

Let's go on. MW doesn't say coolish is cool-ish. It's actually coo-lish. That's true. When you say coolish, you don't say cool and then add ish. The L would be too dark.
Now, the fact is that I change the pronunciation of a as in cat before M, N, and the "NG" sound. I also change it before R. So I say Loss Ehuhn-guh-liss... Pair-ihs...
So the question is: are there any cases where I should not change that vowel? Should I say am-eater or a-meter?

PS: I suspect I shouldn't consider that distinction in MW. I just checked some words, and they say parrot can be pair-uht or pa-rut (ok, I only say pair-uht), but Paris is only pa-ris (???). I say Pair-is, and it is said that way in the audio clip too. So I guess I should always change the sound of my tense a in front of N, M, NG, and R.

And I just found another two examples: mammal and parametric. MW says ma-mul and pa-ruh-meh-trik. Does that mean I should pronounce the a in mammal as the one in cat and not the one in pam? Does that mean I don't have to say pair-uh-meh-trik, but I should use the a in cat? There you go, these are good examples of what I was asking about.

Re: When I have trouble...

CalifJim — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:27:47 GMT

A lot of your phonetic symbols for vowels come out as question marks on my computer, so that's not telling me a lot.

It looks to me like M-W has the pronunciations that I, personally, use most, so that's the one I would trust most.

bay-zul (the herb)
bazz-ul (the British name)

REE-a-LIZE-a-bul
CUST-a-MIZE-a-bul

Because of the "Alternate Stress Rule" (ASR), there's often as much stress on REE or CUST as on the IZE syllable. There's no way around this "problem". It's a case of 'whatever comes out as you're speaking'.

ex-a-CUTE-a-bul
UND-er-line

HY-dro-car-bun (By the ASR, CAR also can get a lot of stress.)
In fast speech, the oh can become uh. The way I say it, it's a kind of half-tense O.
I don't think I ever hear it with a fully tense O.

CJ

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: write and written

CalifJim — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:10:36 GMT

It seems to me that you are wrestling with the "Second-Letter Rule", which says that a single vowel letter (i.e., not combined with another vowel letter in a digraph) is pronounced tense if the second letter after it is another vowel letter, lax otherwise. (lady, caddie, hope, hop, hoping, hopping, June, junk, bite, bit, bitty, bitten, ...) Unfortunately, this rule has only limited application, typically in one-syllable words and in final stressed syllables of polysyllabic words. And the rule never works when v is involved because v is virtually never doubled. (*livved! *givven! *devvil!) Several other cases also conspire to make the rule less than universal.

The Second-Letter Rule works for write and written, but not for Donald. You're correct that for the spelling to match the pronunciation in a system where the Second-Letter Rule always works, Donald would have to be spelled *Donnald.

I suggest that you introduce a phonetic spelling system to your students to illustrate how words are pronounced. You may want to point out some common correspondences between the spelling and the pronunciation, all the while warning your students that these correspondences cannot always be relied on, and often the pronunciation of a word simply must be memorized separately from the spelling.

CJ

Re: Please help solve an argument

Anonymous — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:14:55 GMT

I'm so confused. I mainly studied phonetics, syntax never interested me much until now.

Anyway, as a native speaker, this sentence is fine.

What would you have said verbals are if you had been allowed to say only one sentence and this sentence didn't have to contain the words: participle, gerund, infinitive?

The two clauses after "if" are in different tenses, yes. But it's not a problem. It's not incorrect. Sorry, I can't explain why.

Re: Su Cheng Zhong's Post: the Vocabulary Problem in Modern English

julielai — Tue, 15 Feb 2005 04:47:46 GMT

As more people use Englsh, the language will change more quickly, and I don't see how we can "freeze" the language at one point in time so we can conduct this little experiment. The moment you come up with a system, somebody would have borrowed more words and "messed up" your system again. After all, we're asking the whole world to abide by one set of rules

Why not we free those suffix from the current verb?
-In this case, why bother have any word at all? Just break apart every word for every separable element--and you'll end up with uhmmm -- letters. Unbreakable will become "un" "break" "able" -- which is inefficient if you consider the 2 spaces wasted between the words.

-If I am right, than the 'does' will divided the two meanings not 'she' or 'her'.
-You're adding a word! That's not efficient.

The French tries to "control" how their own people use language, and from what I can tell, with limited success. I am not sure how we can program efficiency into everyone.

>Because English has not got enough phonetic patterns.
I beg to differ. What's wrong with preserving the original "look" of the loan word? That way, we can understand how the loaned words change through time. We're eradicating linguistic forensics here.

>I think you agree with me at this point, but why not we free those suffix from the >current verb?
We're going in a circle. We've agreed that tense markers are important when "when" is not mentioned. Problem is, you assume that everyone values efficiency over everything else, that everybody cares when things happen down to the second, and that everyone define efficiency the same way. That's a huge cultural assumption to make. Also, who are we to say that tense markers and the suffix system are less efficient? Just because we don't have it in Chinese doesn't mean others find them a nuisance.
If it is such a nuisance, it wouldn't exist in SO many languages. Some may argue that turning ***everything into a prefix or suffix is more efficient than trying to have so many detachable parts, with all these spaces, no?

Re: Su Cheng Zhong's Post: the Vocabulary Problem in Modern English

Su Cheng Zhong — Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:21:08 GMT

If you don't like to use another explanation, then I try to explain it and you may correct it for me. The sentence of:
"I like him more than she gives the impression of I like him more than she likes him."
means: She expressed an idea that I like him more than she likes him. But in fact I like him more than this.
You said: "Why do people use irregular verbs? Depends on the origin of the verb, I guess. English did borrow from many languages."
But I have a different idea. The past tense of old English 'wear' was 'wered' not wore. This word is harder to pronounce than current 'wore'. You may repeat them several times to find it. So the economy of pronunciation is the first priority. Like wise, plenty of the irregular verbs have such property. Just think about 'taked' and 'took', 'seed' and 'saw' 'haved' and 'had', 'runed' and 'ran' etc. that means to say the English victim memory to remember a new word in order to reduce the times of oral action. Why this happened? Because English has not got enough phonetic patterns. Once the number of phonetic pattern increased, all the grammatical system would be changed. Some German linguists had found some thing about this.
Yes, it should be a hassle. But the full question is that the ancient people caring about the past and now, so they invent the past and present tense. Current people caring about every minutes, if keeping on the track, then we have to invent a suffix for every second for every verb. Yet when we separate them or free the suffix from the verb, then every thing would be simple. I think you agree with me at this point, but why not we free those suffix from the current verb?

May be this time I got what you want to say.
I like him more than she.
Means 'I like him more than she does.'
I like him more than her.
Means 'I like him better than her.'
If I am right, than the 'does' will divided the two meanings not 'she' or 'her'.

You said
"-Linguistic engineering is like genetic engineering -- it's something I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole! Maybe it's better to have consistent tense markers, but any artificial manipulation of the language is bound to have unintended consequences."
Any development in language would be step by step. Even the ancient monarchy couldn't change it overnight. The question is currently most of the linguists intend to explain the some ancient legacy or habit as linguistic science. It is a big mistake.

Re: Rules of Pronounciation for regular verbs in the Simple Past needed

CalifJim — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 05:07:06 GMT

If you need a detailed description for American English, here's something I came across in some old notes of mine. It's got some exercises at the end too! The phonetic transcriptions aren't really anything standard, but I think you can figure them out.

Past tense of Regular Verbs
Phonetic Considerations

/xxxxx/ shows how the word is pronounced.
"xxxxx" shows how the word is written.
These guidelines do not apply to irregular verbs.

1. Verbs that end in /d/.
Add /id/.

/pad/ /padid/ ("pad","padded")
/land/ /landid/ ("land","landed")
/bOrd/ /bOrdid/ ("board","boarded")
/trAd/ /trAdid/ ("trade","traded")

2. Verbs that end in a consonant and /t/.
The final /t/ remains the same. Add /id/.

/akt/ /aktid/ ("act","acted")
/irupt/ /iruptid/ ("erupt","erupted")
/lift/ /liftid/ ("lift","lifted")
/twist/ /twistid/ ("twist","twisted")

The verb form "wanted" drops the /t/ in most everyday conversations.
"wanted" = /waunid/. Use /waunt'id/ only in careful speech.

3. Verbs that end in a vowel* and /.t/.
*This includes R-colored vowels.
Change the /.t/ to /d/ and add /id/.

/pa.t/ /padid/ ("pat","patted") Intervocallic "t" and "d"
/stAR.t/ /stARdid/ ("start","started") are neutralized!
/sE.t/ /sEdid/ ("seat","seated") That means "t between vowels"
/nO.t/ /nOdid/ ("note","noted") and "d between vowels"
/wA.t/ /wAdid/ ("wait","waited") are pronounced the same.

/.t/ represents an unreleased /t/.
Final "t" after "r" or after a vowel graph is normally unreleased.

If you need to be very precise, keep the /t/, for example, if you didn't understand a word, ask:
Did you say "seated" or "seeded"? ... "waded" or "waited"?
/sE-t'ed/ or /sE-ded/ /wA-ded/ or /wA-t'ed/
It would obviously do no good to ask "Did you say '/wAdid/' or '/wAdid/'?" !!!
But in normal conversation in the U.S. and in Canada, these /t/'s are pronounced as /d/'s. /sEdid/ = "seated" or "seeded"; /wAdid/ = "waded" or "waited".

4. Verbs that end in an unvoiced consonant other than /t/.
(That is, those that end in /p/,/k/,/f/,/s/,/Sh/, or /tSh/.)
Add /t/.

/hO.p/ /hOpt/ ("hope","hoped")
/bA.k/ /bAkt/ ("bake","baked")
/laf/ /laft/ ("laugh","laughed")
/lAs/ /lAst/ ("lace","laced")
/wauSh/ /wauSht/ ("wash","washed")
/latSh/ /latSht/ ("latch","latched")

Since /tSh/ = /Ch/, the last example could have been written phonetically as:

/laCh/ /laCht/

5. Verbs that have any other ending (voiced consonants other than 'd', or vowels).
Add /d/.

/nAm/ /nAmd/ ("name","named")
/nab/ /nabd/ ("nab","nabbed")
/shO/ /shOd/ ("show","showed")
/beg/ /begd/ ("beg","begged")
/rAn/ /rAnd/ ("rain","rained")
/dodZh/ /dodZhd/ ("dodge","dodged")

Since /dZh/ = /j/, the last example could have been written phonetically as:

/doj/ /dojd/
____________________________________________

Practice saying the base form (shown) and the past tense of these verbs.
Write out the phonetic form of at least 5 of each type.
Type 1. afford, add, fade, pad, kid, side, confide, card, board, weed, wend, blend, befriend, sand, attend, heed, aid, bread, hood
Type 2. act, twist, conduct, select, perfect, construct, elect, dust, toast, fast, evict, dent, vent, opt, adopt, rust, salt, bolt, tilt, predict, lift
Type 3. start, bait, state, sight, depart, court, assert, avert, create, plate, bleat, tote, coat, boot, loot, bat, fret, edit, inhibit
Type 4. rope, soap, cope, nap, trap, trip, skip, bake, rake, fake, poke, soak, lock, nick, ache, laugh, quaff, rough, cough, doff, roof, miss, place, trace, wish, fish, finish, polish, abolish, itch, reach, leach, cinch, enrich
Type 5. bathe, fan, yell, empty, try, cry, snow, flow, pardon, consider, pray, saw, prove, love, live, smile, mine, team, steam, scream, ding, file, fool, fill