IronFist Senior Member United States Joined 6247 days ago 663 posts - 941 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Japanese, Korean
| Message 65 of 106 14 January 2012 at 7:43pm | IP Logged |
I've seen written before:
"for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes."
And a few others like that but I can't recall them at the moment.
I see how that could happen. If you've only heard people say that and never seen it written down, you might think they were saying "intensive."
When I was a kid I thought the person who lived in the house next to yours was your "next store neighbor." I thought people were saying "next store" when they were actually saying "next door."
I knew a real estate agent who said when he was younger he thought "floor to ceiling windows" were called "Florida ceiling windows," which made sense because they are huge windows which is what you would want if you lived in Florida to let all the sun in.
Plus, many people pronounce "Florida" as "floor-duh," and "floor to ceiling" would be slurred to "floor duh ceiling," so they really are pronounced the same.
Oh, and there was a famous internet misspelling a few years ago, which was saying "minus whale" instead of "might as well."
2 persons have voted this message useful
|
Gosiak Triglot Senior Member Poland Joined 4936 days ago 241 posts - 361 votes Speaks: Polish*, English, German Studies: Norwegian, Welsh
| Message 66 of 106 14 January 2012 at 7:51pm | IP Logged |
What irritates me in my own pronunciation of English?
Many things that I am painfuly aware of since I had phonetics as a subject and was
drilled to pronunce certain sounds nativelike. The most recent thing I observed is that I
somehow mispronunce the 'h' sound by using the Polish variant /x/. I also tend to add a
hint of American to my English and notice it after I finish talking.
I'm not irritated by my pronunciation of German because I speak it so rarely that I do
not manage to spot reccuring flaws.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
IronFist Senior Member United States Joined 6247 days ago 663 posts - 941 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Japanese, Korean
| Message 67 of 106 14 January 2012 at 10:08pm | IP Logged |
Re: initial "dr" being pronounced as "jr"
I was just listening to this song by American supergroup Damn Yankees (1989-1994), and as I was listening to this song "Runaway", I heard of one the lines that goes:
"She said I came to this place
full of dreams
young and innocent and only 16"
When he says "dreams" it distinctly sounds to me like he is NOT saying it with a "jr."
It sounds like a clear "dr" and is being pronounced at the front of his mouth.
This is the only time I've ever noticed this but I wanted to point it out so you guys don't think I'm super stubborn and insist that EVERY "dr" is a "jr."
Have a listen, it's the line that starts at 0:46:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo1nKvBOOrY
It sounds to my ears like he is pronouncing it differently than most people (who would pronounce it as "jream").
What do you guys hear when you listen to that line in the song? A "dr" right?
Do you think the way he says it sounds "normal"?
1 person has voted this message useful
|
mrwarper Diglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member Spain forum_posts.asp?TID=Registered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5036 days ago 1493 posts - 2500 votes Speaks: Spanish*, EnglishC2 Studies: German, Russian, Japanese
| Message 68 of 106 14 January 2012 at 11:15pm | IP Logged |
It sounds the way I was taught it should sound: "dr". Still, it is close enough to "jr" that some people could mix them up. English pronunciation is 'unclear' in many consonant clusters as well. The key is, as someone else mentioned, the articulation points for "d" and "j" are the same; actually j is read as /dʒ/.
As a foreigner I'd be too biased to say there's more people who say it one way or the other. Anyway, I don't like the word "normal" because people don't usually use it as a sort of statistical term, but mean something else (implying "right", or "not worrisome" or God-knows-what instead).
Edited by mrwarper on 14 January 2012 at 11:15pm
1 person has voted this message useful
|
Gosiak Triglot Senior Member Poland Joined 4936 days ago 241 posts - 361 votes Speaks: Polish*, English, German Studies: Norwegian, Welsh
| Message 69 of 106 15 January 2012 at 1:53am | IP Logged |
mrwarper wrote:
It sounds the way I was taught it should sound: "dr". Still, it is
close enough to "jr" that some people could mix them up. English pronunciation is
'unclear' in many consonant clusters as well. The key is, as someone else mentioned,
the articulation points for "d" and "j" are the same; actually j is read as /dʒ/.
|
|
|
You are almost right. English alveoral 'd' changes its place of articulation and
becomes post-alveoral /dʒ/, this process is called palatalization. This kind of
assimilation of place happens quite often, especialy when one speaks fast.
'dr' in drank and dream will change into /dʒ/
'tr' in train and let's say truck into /tʃ/
English pronunciation is subjected to various phonetic processes. Its complex and one
has to keep in mind that English, General American, Australian English and other major
and minor variations have their own sets of rules.
Edited by Gosiak on 15 January 2012 at 2:02am
1 person has voted this message useful
|
LaughingChimp Senior Member Czech Republic Joined 4509 days ago 346 posts - 594 votes Speaks: Czech*
| Message 70 of 106 15 January 2012 at 2:01am | IP Logged |
IronFist wrote:
Have a listen, it's the line that starts at 0:46:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo1nKvBOOrY
It sounds to my ears like he is pronouncing it differently than most people (who would pronounce it as "jream").
What do you guys hear when you listen to that line in the song? A "dr" right? |
|
|
It sounds exactly the same as the examples where you claim to hear j.
mrwarper wrote:
The key is, as someone else mentioned, the articulation points for "d" and "j" are the same; |
|
|
No it's not. "d" is alveolar, "j" is palatoalveolar.
Gosiak wrote:
You are almost right. English alveoral 'd' changes its place of articulation and
becomes post-alveoral /dʒ/, this process is called palatalization. This kind of
assimilation of place happens quite often, especialy when one speaks fast.
'dr' in drank and dream will change into /dʒ/
'tr' in train and let's say truck into /tʃ/
|
|
|
I't not palatalization, the change of "d+y" into "j" is palatalization. "d/t" before "r" sound clearly distinct from "j/ch" to me, more like [ʈʂ]/[ɖʐ]. j/ch sound to me like Czech dž/č, while d/t in dream/tree sound to me closer to Czech dř/tř. (AFAIK Czech ř isn't really retroflex, but I don't know any closer IPA symbol)
Edited by LaughingChimp on 15 January 2012 at 2:17am
1 person has voted this message useful
|
mrwarper Diglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member Spain forum_posts.asp?TID=Registered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5036 days ago 1493 posts - 2500 votes Speaks: Spanish*, EnglishC2 Studies: German, Russian, Japanese
| Message 71 of 106 15 January 2012 at 3:11am | IP Logged |
LaughingChimp wrote:
mrwarper wrote:
... articulation points for "d" and "j" are the same; |
|
|
No it's not. "d" is alveolar, "j" is palatoalveolar.
Gosiak wrote:
You are almost right. English alveoral 'd' changes its place of articulation and
becomes post-alveoral /dʒ/, this process is called palatalization. This kind of
assimilation of place happens quite often, especialy when one speaks fast.
'dr' in drank and dream will change into /dʒ/
'tr' in train and let's say truck into /tʃ/
|
|
|
I't not palatalization, the change of "d+y" into "j" is palatalization.
|
|
|
Either it is or it isn't. It can't be and not be at the same time.
Palatalization is the change from 'd' to 'soft d', extraordinarily similar to inserting an /i/ after /d/. This is what happens with the 'd' in 'education' for example, where /d/ becomes /dʒ/ (in certain accents, that is -- seen John Malkovich in the Nespresso commercial?).
For the record, I'd say the fact that English 'j' is written as d + something else in IPA sort of implies that the articulation points are the same, but I'll be delighted to hear why else they'd represent 'j' as /d/+...; IPA is certainly not perfect but it works for English. Either that, or they've been cheating for a while now.
Of course the articulation points change right after the initial 'd', because there's "something else" following it -- shouldn't that be obvious?
2 persons have voted this message useful
|
egill Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5506 days ago 418 posts - 791 votes Speaks: Mandarin, English* Studies: German, Spanish, Dutch
| Message 72 of 106 15 January 2012 at 3:43am | IP Logged |
mrwarper wrote:
...
Either it is or it isn't. It can't be and not be at the same time.
Palatalization is the change from 'd' to 'soft d', extraordinarily similar to inserting
an /i/ after /d/. This is what happens with the 'd' in 'education' for example, where
/d/ becomes /dʒ/ (in certain accents, that is -- seen John Malkovich in the Nespresso
commercial?).
...
|
|
|
I think he's drawing a distinction between pure palatalization, e.g. [dʲ] and
palatalization with accompanying affrication, e.g. [dʒ]. That is, there is a stricter
and a looser usage of the word. One referring to just the [j]-like raising of the
tongue, and the other to it and also its effects on surrounding sounds. Both
senses are commonly used.
As for the debate, in American English I always hear [dʒ] in DREAM-words and [tʃ] in
TREE-words. I'm very confident that there is a distinction for some people, but it's
not one I can perceive, nor one I make.
In fact, a non-affricated or less affricated version of these sounds is something I
associate (rightly or wrongly) with certain accents of the British Isles, particularly
Irish.
Edited by egill on 15 January 2012 at 3:45am
3 persons have voted this message useful
|