1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
LEE Sau Dan (Email Removed) wrote on 02 Jan 2004:
CyberCypher> True, but I do and I'm a native English-speaker. I didn't know that! And I want other readers of ... the sounds by the mouth are quite the same Mouth? You don't just use your mouth to speak, do you?

No, not just my mouth, but all the related organs of speech therein.
The formation of the sounds different by constrictions in the vocal cord one important speech organ. The force you ... variations produces the differences between HA-shi and ha-SHI. So, how would you call these two words "the same sound"?[/nq]I suppose there are are different ways of looking at sounds. Two speakers with voices of different different pitches, eg high C and E below middle C, when pronouncing the same words in a given language actually produce different sounds, but they are recognized as the same word nonetheless. One person speaking the same words at different pitches or, say, smoothly and with an artificially gravelly voice, can be said to be producing the same words even though the sounds are different.

Is the sound the word? Every sound recognizable in a language has a range within which it can be recognized even when distorted by the conventions of Noh drama, Beijing opera, or Western opera, as well as the artificial voices produced by the types of machines that give voices to Stephen Hawking and digital telephone message machines. Despite the differences in the sounds produced, we can usually recognize the same words being said by all.

For a native speaker of language A, in which the letter "i" has only a single sound (i), "you only live twice" might come out sounding like "you only leave twice". For a native English-speaker, there's a difference; for the language-A speaker, there is none. Native speakers of Japanese and Chinese have a hard time hearing the difference between certain vowels and consonants found in English but not Chinese or Japanese, and native speaker of English have similar problems hearing the differences between certain sounds in Japanese and Chinese and, believe me, I know this from long-term personal experience, not from books or anecdotes and what sounds like "the same sound" to one group sounds like two different sounds to the other.
CyberCypher> But the physical formation of the sounds by the mouth the production of the sounds, with the exception ... the distinctions in speech sounds needed in most languages. Even in English, you need the nasal cavity for certain sounds.

Yes, I agree.
CyberCypher> Not at all: 1 tree for a single tree, 2 trees for a (small group) wood (s), and 3 ... don't have to rote-memorize the pronunciations. Once we know what the characters mean, we know which sound it refers to.

You can do that, I assume, because you've had the words explained before you began to read characters. If you had never heard those words and didn't know how they sounded, would you be able to deduce their sounds by looking at the characters? I'm just asking, not challenging. Native anglophones don't have to rote-memorize the irregular conjugation of the verb "to be" either; that verb in all its forms is used so frequently in everyday speech that it becomes part of one's linguistic repertoire the way walking becomes an action performed without thought for all animals with functional legs.
CyberCypher> The pronunciation comes from the letter combinations: CyberCypher> "ais" = (ai) and "le" = syllabic (l). CyberCypher> Only in ... Chinese. So, I have to rote-memorize that I should not pronouce the "s" in these cases. That's rote-memorization .

If you aren't fluent in French, yes.
CyberCypher> The same is true for the M-W 3rd International, but that doesn't mean that native English speakers don't actually say it; some do. And why is that? Spelling affecting pronuncation of learnt words?

Absolutely. For people whose native language is written in roman letters, each has an individual phonetic value or a name or both and may also have the same or different phonetic value in combination with other letters. That's why I think Japanese and Chinese should be taught with phonetic symbols only and not romanization, especially to Westerners; to me, at least, it's less confusing to read bopomofo and furigana.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
We, native speakers, don't have to rote-memorize the pronunciations. Once we know what the characters mean, we know which sound it refers to.

You can do that, I assume, because you've had the words explained before you began to read characters.

Splork! Did your mommy "explain" to you the meanings of the words of your native language before you started learning to read? Of course not! You simply learned to speak it, perfectly, by being exposed to it every day! ("Uniquely human.")
If you had never heard those words and didn't know how they sounded, would you be able to deduce their sounds by looking at the characters? I'm just asking, not challenging.

Because a Chinese-speaker already knows the language perfectly, the identity of a (previously) unknown character can almost always be deduced from the semantic component, the phonetic component, and the context.

Peter T. Daniels (Email Removed)
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies