How many syllables are there in the word "books"?

[Justin Thyme]

How many syllables are there in the word "books"?

Also, for British English is "syllable" (and "word" too I suppose!) well
enough defined for the question "how many syllables are there in the
word ...?" to always get a clear answer?

[Lewis]

In message <n7g1t7$pf3$1...@news.albasani.net>

Justin Thyme <Justi...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> How many syllables are there in the word "books"?

One.

> Also, for British English is "syllable" (and "word" too I suppose!) well
> enough defined for the question "how many syllables are there in the
> word ...?" to always get a clear answer?

Mostly. There are regionalisms.

There was a rather long thread last year about the name Neal with a few
people claiming it had two syllables. I still have no idea what these
people were talking about and have never heard a two-syllable
pronunciation of the name, not in person, on the radio, in a movie, on a
podcast, or even an audiobook.

I didn't follow much of the thread because it became infected with the
scourge of aue quite early.

--
"I'm not bad; I'm just drawn that way."

[Richard Tobin]

In article <slrnn9n3ul....@amelia.local>,

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>There was a rather long thread last year about the name Neal with a few
>people claiming it had two syllables. I still have no idea what these
>people were talking about and have never heard a two-syllable
>pronunciation of the name, not in person, on the radio, in a movie, on a
>podcast, or even an audiobook.

Hm, how many syllables does "ideal" have for you?

-- Richard

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:00:34 +0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin wrote:
> Hm, how many syllables does "ideal" have for you?
>

Two. I'm an American.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the
/right/ word is ... the difference between the lightning-bug
and the lightning." --Mark Twain

[Janet]

In article <MPG.310560407...@news.individual.net>,
the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...

>
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:00:34 +0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin wrote:
> > Hm, how many syllables does "ideal" have for you?
> >
>
> Two. I'm an American.

Does your "idle" have the same number of syllables as "ideal"?

Janet

[Peter T. Daniels]

Yes. The stress pattern is different, of course.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I seem to remember from the previous discussion that it came down to
"what is a syllable?". A poster claimed that
<consonant><vowel><consonant> becomes two syllables if the vowel is a
glide, starts as one sound and changes to another:.

However, technically, it can remain a single syllable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphthong

A diphthong ..., also known as a gliding vowel, refers to two
adjacent vowel sounds occurring within the same syllable.

My, strictly non-expert, understanding is that it would need a
noticeable gap between two vowels sounds for a syllable split to be
recognised.

One strange and local instance is the pronunciation of "now" by some
people in Northern Ireland. They say "now" as "nah-oo". In fact, the
"ah" and the oo" are so separate in a few people's version that what
they say could be described as two words, "nah" and "oo".

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[musika]

"The end of the world is nigh."
"What! Right nigh?"

--
Ray
UK

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:21:51 -0000, Janet <nob...@home.org> wrote:

>In article <MPG.3105604072c2f5be98f 4...@news.individual.net>,

>the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:00:34 +0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin wrote:
>> > Hm, how many syllables does "ideal" have for you?
>> >
>>
>> Two. I'm an American.
>
> Does your "idle" have the same number of syllables as "ideal"?
>

The Wikipedia discussion of haiku says that a haiku
has 17 /on/ , not syllables.

From what I gather a "longer syllable" may count as 2 on, but
that is probably not exact, either.

I know that my "ideal" is longer than my "idle" and I would
not fit them as exactly the same meter in poetry.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Lewis]

In message <n7g39i$2f17$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Two. Deal has one. So do feel, seal, meal, kneel, heal, weal, wheat,
meat, heat, etc etc.


--
The older you get the more you need the people you knew when you were
young.

[Lewis]

In message <MPG.3105b3d...@news.individual.net>

That's a tough one. It seems like idle is one syllable but is trying very
hard to have two.

--
'I'll see you all tomorrow. If there is one.'

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 11:54:08 AM UTC-5, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:21:51 -0000, Janet <nob...@home.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <MPG.3105604072c2f5be98f 4...@news.individual.net>,
> >the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> >>
> >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:00:34 +0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin wrote:
> >> > Hm, how many syllables does "ideal" have for you?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Two. I'm an American.
> >
> > Does your "idle" have the same number of syllables as "ideal"?
> >
>
> The Wikipedia discussion of haiku says that a haiku
> has 17 /on/ , not syllables.

Japanese meter is counted in moras, not syllables.

> From what I gather a "longer syllable" may count as 2 on, but
> that is probably not exact, either.

A mora in Japanese is any one of: V; CV; vowel length; consonant length.

Not counting as two moras are palatal consonants (mostly in Chinese loans) even though
they're spelled with two kana.

[quia...@yahoo.com]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:21:51 -0000, Janet <nob...@home.org> wrote:

If you say "idling", it has three syllables, to my ear. If it was two,
it would probably be spelled "eidling".

Anyway, "idle" sounds the same as "idyl", which even looks like it has
two.

--
John

[Will Parsons]

On Sunday, 17 Jan 2016 12:53 PM -0500, Lewis wrote:
> In message <n7g39i$2f17$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>
> Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In article <slrnn9n3ul....@amelia.local>,
>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>>There was a rather long thread last year about the name Neal with a few
>>>people claiming it had two syllables. I still have no idea what these
>>>people were talking about and have never heard a two-syllable
>>>pronunciation of the name, not in person, on the radio, in a movie, on a
>>>podcast, or even an audiobook.
>
>> Hm, how many syllables does "ideal" have for you?
>
> Two.

Three for me: [aɪˈdiəl] (though I may well contract the final vowels
into one in not-so-careful speech).

> Deal has one. So do feel, seal, meal, kneel, heal, weal, wheat,
> meat, heat, etc etc.

But in these, the "ee" and "ea" spellings are meant to indicate a
single vowel. The "ea" in "ideal" is meant to indicate a sequence of
two, just like it does in "idea".

--
Will

[David Kleinecke]

Spelling be damned.

I say /ay.diy.'^/ (with a glottal stop and a schwa) and /ay.diyl/.

Hum - does the glottal stop belong the second or third syllable? Isn't
it really the syllable divider?

[Ross]

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 7:59:20 AM UTC+13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 11:54:08 AM UTC-5, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:21:51 -0000, Janet <nob...@home.org> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <MPG.3105604072c2f5be98f 4...@news.individual.net>,
> > >the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:00:34 +0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin wrote:
> > >> > Hm, how many syllables does "ideal" have for you?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Two. I'm an American.
> > >
> > > Does your "idle" have the same number of syllables as "ideal"?
> > >
> >
> > The Wikipedia discussion of haiku says that a haiku
> > has 17 /on/ , not syllables.
>
> Japanese meter is counted in moras, not syllables.
>
> > From what I gather a "longer syllable" may count as 2 on, but
> > that is probably not exact, either.
>
> A mora in Japanese is any one of: V; CV; vowel length; consonant length.

or post-vocalic /n/.

[Will Parsons]

I think I'd find your speech rather strange.

--
Will

[Peter T. Daniels]

No, the little extra bit of energy that seems like a syllable is just the glide
into the [l].

Do you pronounce "wheel" and "weal" differently? "meet" and "meat"?

[RH Draney]

On 1/17/2016 11:59 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 11:54:08 AM UTC-5, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> Japanese meter is counted in moras, not syllables.
>
>> From what I gather a "longer syllable" may count as 2 on, but
>> that is probably not exact, either.
>
> A mora in Japanese is any one of: V; CV; vowel length; consonant length.

Or "-n"....r

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 2:59:35 PM UTC-5, Ross wrote:
> On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 7:59:20 AM UTC+13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 11:54:08 AM UTC-5, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:21:51 -0000, Janet <nob...@home.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <MPG.3105604072c2f5be98f 4...@news.individual.net>,
> > > >the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:00:34 +0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin wrote:
> > > >> > Hm, how many syllables does "ideal" have for you?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Two. I'm an American.
> > > >
> > > > Does your "idle" have the same number of syllables as "ideal"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Wikipedia discussion of haiku says that a haiku
> > > has 17 /on/ , not syllables.
> >
> > Japanese meter is counted in moras, not syllables.
> >
> > > From what I gather a "longer syllable" may count as 2 on, but
> > > that is probably not exact, either.
> >
> > A mora in Japanese is any one of: V; CV; vowel length; consonant length.
>
> or post-vocalic /n/.

Damn, I knew I left one out! (I'd label it more generally "nasalization," becuase
it can be realized either as nasalization of the vowel or as a segment-like
extension of the vowel.)

[Jerry Friedman]

For me, "idle" has two and "ideal" has three.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Janet]

In article <n7h6fm$vrd$2...@news.albasani.net>, jerry_f...@yahoo.com
says...

+1

Janet

[Will Parsons]

It depends on the person, I suppose. Are "hire" and "higher"
pronounced the same or not? I think I normally make a distinction,
but they can blend into each other. Same thing with "roil" and
"royal". For me, at any rate, "ideal" is normally three syllables.

> Do you pronounce "wheel" and "weal" differently? "meet" and "meat"?

No - why should I? The distinction has nothing to do with the fact
that the combination "ea" may denote a single vowel in many English
words - in "ideal" it doesn't.

--
Will

[Robert Bannister]

Two.

--
Robert B.

[Stan Brown]

Yes, though the positions of accent and the second vowels are
different.

[Robert Bannister]

I have thought "idle", "ideal" and "idyll" were all completely
different, and that the fact that they each have two syllables was
irrelevant.
--
Robert B.

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Jan-17 23:55, Lewis wrote:
> In message <n7g1t7$pf3$1...@news.albasani.net>
> Justin Thyme <Justi...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> How many syllables are there in the word "books"?
>
> One.
>
>> Also, for British English is "syllable" (and "word" too I suppose!) well
>> enough defined for the question "how many syllables are there in the
>> word ...?" to always get a clear answer?
>
> Mostly. There are regionalisms.

I am having trouble thinking of any dialect of English where "books" has
more than one syllable, but there's probably someone somewhere who
stretches the "oo" into a long diphthong.

> There was a rather long thread last year about the name Neal with a few
> people claiming it had two syllables. I still have no idea what these
> people were talking about and have never heard a two-syllable
> pronunciation of the name, not in person, on the radio, in a movie, on a
> podcast, or even an audiobook.
>
> I didn't follow much of the thread because it became infected with the
> scourge of aue quite early.

He Who Should Be Ignored apparently says Nee-yull, but that's merely a
reflection of the fact that "Neil" is pronounced differently in
different regions.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Lewis]

In message <26991518-3c84-4166...@googlegroups.com>

David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-8, Will Parsons wrote:
>> On Sunday, 17 Jan 2016 12:53 PM -0500, Lewis wrote:
>> > In message <n7g39i$2f17$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>
>> > Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >> In article <slrnn9n3ul....@amelia.local>,
>> >> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>There was a rather long thread last year about the name Neal with a few
>> >>>people claiming it had two syllables. I still have no idea what these
>> >>>people were talking about and have never heard a two-syllable
>> >>>pronunciation of the name, not in person, on the radio, in a movie, on a
>> >>>podcast, or even an audiobook.
>> >
>> >> Hm, how many syllables does "ideal" have for you?
>> >
>> > Two.
>>
>> Three for me: [aɪˈdiəl] (though I may well contract the final vowels
>> into one in not-so-careful speech).
>>
>> > Deal has one. So do feel, seal, meal, kneel, heal, weal, wheat,
>> > meat, heat, etc etc.
>>
>> But in these, the "ee" and "ea" spellings are meant to indicate a
>> single vowel. The "ea" in "ideal" is meant to indicate a sequence of
>> two, just like it does in "idea".

idea has three syllables, ideal has two.

> Spelling be damned.

> I say /ay.diy.'^/ (with a glottal stop and a schwa) and /ay.diyl/.

That looks right.


--
"Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence." - H. L. Mencken

[Lewis]

In message <n7hfjl$jjf$1...@dont-email.me>

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-Jan-17 23:55, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <n7g1t7$pf3$1...@news.albasani.net>
>> Justin Thyme <Justi...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> How many syllables are there in the word "books"?
>>
>> One.
>>
>>> Also, for British English is "syllable" (and "word" too I suppose!) well
>>> enough defined for the question "how many syllables are there in the
>>> word ...?" to always get a clear answer?
>>
>> Mostly. There are regionalisms.

> I am having trouble thinking of any dialect of English where "books" has
> more than one syllable, but there's probably someone somewhere who
> stretches the "oo" into a long diphthong.

The question I answered had nothing to do with the word book.

> He Who Should Be Ignored apparently says Nee-yull, but that's merely a
> reflection of the fact that "Neil" is pronounced differently in
> different regions.

You'd think there would be an example in a movie, tv show, podcast, or
something that reflected this pronunciation. I've seen English language
films from all around the world and have never heard "nee-yull".


--
SUSURRATION: It's a hushed noise. But it hints of plots and secrets and
people turning to one another in surprise. It's the noise, in fact, made
just after the sword is withdrawn from the stone and just before the
cheering starts.

[Lewis]

In message <5bqn9bpd36f915ire...@4ax.com>

quia...@yahoo.com <quia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:21:51 -0000, Janet <nob...@home.org> wrote:

>>In article <MPG.310560407...@news.individual.net>,
>>the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
>>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:00:34 +0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> > Hm, how many syllables does "ideal" have for you?
>>> >
>>>
>>> Two. I'm an American.
>>
>> Does your "idle" have the same number of syllables as "ideal"?


> If you say "idling", it has three syllables, to my ear. If it was two,
> it would probably be spelled "eidling".

It usually has two. Sometimes I insert a spurious schwa between the d
and the l.

Maybe most of the time. Now I'm not sure having "said" idling in my head
about 40 times it's lost all meaning and I can't decide if I mostly
insert that schwa or mostly don't.

> Anyway, "idle" sounds the same as "idyl", which even looks like it has
> two.

Looks are deceiving, both have one here.

--
The night is always old. He'd walked too often down dark streets in the
secret hours and felt the night stretching away, and known in his blood
that while days and kings and empires come and go, the night is always
the same age, always aeons deep. Terrors unfolded in the velvet shadows
and while the nature of the talons may change, the nature of the beast
does not. --Jingo

[bill van]

In article <slrnn9oh8i....@amelia.local>,

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> idea has three syllables, ideal has two.

Then you pronounce "ideal" differently than I do. My ideal is pronounced
like idea with an l at the end. I have heard people - Americans, I think
- say it with two syllables.

bill
--
bill

[Janet]

In article <slrnn9ohe1....@amelia.local>,
g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies says...

>
> In message <n7hfjl$jjf$1...@dont-email.me>
> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> > On 2016-Jan-17 23:55, Lewis wrote:
> >> In message <n7g1t7$pf3$1...@news.albasani.net>
> >> Justin Thyme <Justi...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>> How many syllables are there in the word "books"?
> >>
> >> One.
> >>
> >>> Also, for British English is "syllable" (and "word" too I suppose!) well
> >>> enough defined for the question "how many syllables are there in the
> >>> word ...?" to always get a clear answer?
> >>
> >> Mostly. There are regionalisms.
>
> > I am having trouble thinking of any dialect of English where "books" has
> > more than one syllable, but there's probably someone somewhere who
> > stretches the "oo" into a long diphthong.
>
> The question I answered had nothing to do with the word book.
>
> > He Who Should Be Ignored apparently says Nee-yull, but that's merely a
> > reflection of the fact that "Neil" is pronounced differently in
> > different regions.
>
> You'd think there would be an example in a movie, tv show, podcast, or
> something that reflected this pronunciation. I've seen English language
> films from all around the world and have never heard "nee-yull".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2njav3lAUFo

Janet.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

David Kleinecke skrev:

> Hum - does the glottal stop belong the second or third syllable? Isn't
> it really the syllable divider?

It is.

--
Bertel - stadig med Linux

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Janet skrev:

>> You'd think there would be an example in a movie, tv show, podcast, or
>> something that reflected this pronunciation. I've seen English language
>> films from all around the world and have never heard "nee-yull".

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2njav3lAUFo

This just reflects the difficulty of discussing pronunciation in
writing. Many of the 'differences' in oppinion and in
pronunciation would evaporate if people sat face to face.

[Lewis]

In message <MPG.3106d94...@news.individual.net>

That is one syllable.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Those are two pairs of homonyms (both disyllabic).

> > Do you pronounce "wheel" and "weal" differently? "meet" and "meat"?
>
> No - why should I? The distinction has nothing to do with the fact
> that the combination "ea" may denote a single vowel in many English
> words - in "ideal" it doesn't.

I think you're influenced by the spelling -- but my two examples show that
you shouldn't be.

[J. J. Lodder]

Three in Dutch, two in English, for me.
I would have taken English 'ideal'
with three clearly pronounced distinct sylables
for Dunglish,

Jan

[Jack Campin]

>>>> He Who Should Be Ignored apparently says Nee-yull, but that's
>>>> merely a reflection of the fact that "Neil" is pronounced
>>>> differently in different regions.
>>> You'd think there would be an example in a movie, tv show, podcast, or
>>> something that reflected this pronunciation. I've seen English language
>>> films from all around the world and have never heard "nee-yull".
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2njav3lAUFo
> That is one syllable.

I hear it as two, but the speaker sounds American to me - the "ee"
is wrong (it purports to be an English pronunciation and it isn't).
The following schwa is OK.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

[pensive hamster]

On Monday, 18 January 2016 13:50:46 UTC, Lewis wrote:
> Janet wrote:
> > g.kreme says...
> >> Peter Moylan wrote:
[...]

> >> > He Who Should Be Ignored apparently says Nee-yull, but that's merely a
> >> > reflection of the fact that "Neil" is pronounced differently in
> >> > different regions.
> >>
> >> You'd think there would be an example in a movie, tv show, podcast, or
> >> something that reflected this pronunciation. I've seen English language
> >> films from all around the world and have never heard "nee-yull".
>
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2njav3lAUFo
>
> That is one syllable.

That YouTube recording sounds like about one and one third syllables
to me.

Is there some law which says part-syllables must not be counted?

WP says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllable
'A syllable is a unit of organization for a sequence of speech sounds.
For example, the word water is composed of two syllables: wa and ter.
A syllable is typically made up of a syllable nucleus (most often a vowel)
with optional initial and final margins (typically, consonants).'

"Neil" seems to fit that 3-part pattern. Though I suppose that if you
define a syllable as 'a unit of organization for a sequence of speech
sounds', it matters not how many distinct(ish) sounds there might be
within the syllable, they just count as one sequence of sounds.

I don't think WP's definition is a very good definition of "syllable",
because "word" could be defined in exactly the same way: 'A word is a
unit of organization for a sequence of speech sounds.'

[Jerry Friedman]

The three-syllable pronunciation /aI'di@l/ is listed first in the AHD.
M-W puts the schwa in parentheses, avoiding the issue of which to list
first.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Will Parsons]

Absolutely? In all dialects/idiolect? I think not.

>> > Do you pronounce "wheel" and "weal" differently? "meet" and "meat"?
>>
>> No - why should I? The distinction has nothing to do with the fact
>> that the combination "ea" may denote a single vowel in many English
>> words - in "ideal" it doesn't.
>
> I think you're influenced by the spelling -- but my two examples show that
> you shouldn't be.

You're mistaken. I may, though, be influenced in pronouncing the two
vowels separately by comparison with (Late) Latin _idealis_, or French
_idéal_, or Spanish _ideal_. But, really, even without that, "ideal"
is an obvious adjectival derivation from "idea" - it should be
expected that the "e" and "a" would be pronounced separately.

--
Will

[Janet]

In article <slrnn9prdg....@amelia.local>,

g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies says...
>
> In message <MPG.3106d94...@news.individual.net>
> Janet <nob...@home.org> wrote:
> > In article <slrnn9ohe1....@amelia.local>,
> > g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies says...

> >> You'd think there would be an example in a movie, tv show, podcast, or
> >> something that reflected this pronunciation. I've seen English language
> >> films from all around the world and have never heard "nee-yull".
>
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2njav3lAUFo
>
> That is one syllable.

It is an example of "nee-yull" ,for the benefit of the previous
poster who had never heard it said that way and asked for an example.

Janet.

[David Kleinecke]

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 6:55:04 AM UTC-8, pensive hamster wrote:

> WP says:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllable
> 'A syllable is a unit of organization for a sequence of speech sounds.
> For example, the word water is composed of two syllables: wa and ter.
> A syllable is typically made up of a syllable nucleus (most often a vowel)
> with optional initial and final margins (typically, consonants).'

Not Wikipedia's best day. I would divide it as wat+er (/wat.r/)

[John Varela]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:25:05 UTC, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 13:00:34 +0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin wrote:

> > Hm, how many syllables does "ideal" have for you?
> >
>

> Two. I'm an American.

So am I and it has three for me. The tongue has to go back in the
mouth to make the l sound, and I can't do that without inserting a
Schwa. That's the same schwa that creates the second syllable of
"idle".

--
John Varela

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

David Kleinecke skrev:

>> WP says:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllable
>> 'A syllable is a unit of organization for a sequence of speech sounds.
>> For example, the word water is composed of two syllables: wa and ter.
>> A syllable is typically made up of a syllable nucleus (most often a vowel)
>> with optional initial and final margins (typically, consonants).'

> Not Wikipedia's best day. I would divide it as wat+er (/wat.r/)

I think it's a good day for Wikipedia, and your way of dividing
seems strange. If you want to speak slowly, you don't say
"watt-er", but "waa-ter". If you want to pause between syllables,
you do it after "wa".

[pensive hamster]

"Waa-ter" sounds like Peter Sellers or John Cleese saying "water"
in a mock French accent.

But I agree, if I wanted to pause between the syllables in "water",
I'd do it after "wa". Though I would probably say something closer
to "war...ter".

[Peter T. Daniels]

How could I know about all dialects/idiolects?

> >> > Do you pronounce "wheel" and "weal" differently? "meet" and "meat"?
> >> No - why should I? The distinction has nothing to do with the fact
> >> that the combination "ea" may denote a single vowel in many English
> >> words - in "ideal" it doesn't.
> > I think you're influenced by the spelling -- but my two examples show that
> > you shouldn't be.
>
> You're mistaken. I may, though, be influenced in pronouncing the two
> vowels separately by comparison with (Late) Latin _idealis_, or French
> _idéal_, or Spanish _ideal_.

Why should any of those have anything to do with English pronunciation? None
of those are known to the vast majority of English-speakers.

> But, really, even without that, "ideal"
> is an obvious adjectival derivation from "idea"

Not "obviously" in the slightest. I have no such intuition.

> - it should be
> expected that the "e" and "a" would be pronounced separately.

Just like divine/divinity serene/serenity profound/profundity, where each of
the diphthongs pairs with a -- oops, monophthong?

[David Kleinecke]

Thank You for explaining what I do to me.

Were I the Wonkette I would call it mansplaining.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

David Kleinecke skrev:

>> I think it's a good day for Wikipedia, and your way of dividing
>> seems strange. If you want to speak slowly, you don't say
>> "watt-er", but "waa-ter". If you want to pause between syllables,
>> you do it after "wa".

> Thank You for explaining what I do to me.

I presume that you are aware that "you" in English is used in a
general sense. If not, it's high time you learn it.

[Harrison Hill]

On Sunday, 17 January 2016 12:36:57 UTC, Justin Thyme wrote:
> How many syllables are there in the word "books"?
>

> Also, for British English is "syllable" (and "word" too I suppose!) well
> enough defined for the question "how many syllables are there in the
> word ...?" to always get a clear answer?

I didn't get involved in this thread because it seemed daft.
Today I learn that my wife pronounces "smear" as "some-ear", so maybe
it isn't so daft ;)

[David Kleinecke]

This is a good example of why one does not use that you-in-general-
sense if one if prudent.

And you are wrong about the syllables, too.

[Will Parsons]

How indeed. So why did you make the absolute statement about
containing two syllables, in apparent contradiction to my own
statement about my own pronunciation?

>> >> > Do you pronounce "wheel" and "weal" differently? "meet" and "meat"?
>> >> No - why should I? The distinction has nothing to do with the fact
>> >> that the combination "ea" may denote a single vowel in many English
>> >> words - in "ideal" it doesn't.
>> > I think you're influenced by the spelling -- but my two examples show that
>> > you shouldn't be.
>>
>> You're mistaken. I may, though, be influenced in pronouncing the two
>> vowels separately by comparison with (Late) Latin _idealis_, or French
>> _idéal_, or Spanish _ideal_.
>
> Why should any of those have anything to do with English pronunciation? None
> of those are known to the vast majority of English-speakers.

Because the English is derived from a Latin term (possibly via French
for all I know). Why do you think the "ea" in "theatre/-ter" is
pronounced as two vowels? Why should the fact that it comes from
Greek θέατρον via Latin _theatrum_ have anything to do with the
English pronunciation, seeking that the vast majority of
English-speakers are most likely not aware of those languages?
It's clear that we should be saying [ˈθiːtə(r)], not [ˈθiətə(r)]!

>> But, really, even without that, "ideal"
>> is an obvious adjectival derivation from "idea"
>
> Not "obviously" in the slightest. I have no such intuition.

So, you are unfamiliar with the adjectival suffix -al, despite its
being quite common in words of Latin origin? (It's even fairly common
in words of non-Latin origin.) I think you are being disingenuous.

>> - it should be
>> expected that the "e" and "a" would be pronounced separately.
>
> Just like divine/divinity serene/serenity profound/profundity, where each of
> the diphthongs pairs with a -- oops, monophthong?

You know perfectly well that those are not parallels. Please try to
be serious.

--
Will

[pensive hamster]

Yes, despite the fact that "you" can be used in English in a general
sense, more-or-less similarly to "one", nevertheless Bertel's statement
(quoted above) does come across as somewhat bossy or didactic in
tone, rather as if he were addressing a small child.

> And you are wrong about the syllables, too.

Though I don't agree that he is wrong about the syllables.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Why do you take general observations as absolutes?

> >> >> > Do you pronounce "wheel" and "weal" differently? "meet" and "meat"?
> >> >> No - why should I? The distinction has nothing to do with the fact
> >> >> that the combination "ea" may denote a single vowel in many English
> >> >> words - in "ideal" it doesn't.
> >> > I think you're influenced by the spelling -- but my two examples show that
> >> > you shouldn't be.
> >>
> >> You're mistaken. I may, though, be influenced in pronouncing the two
> >> vowels separately by comparison with (Late) Latin _idealis_, or French
> >> _idéal_, or Spanish _ideal_.
> >
> > Why should any of those have anything to do with English pronunciation? None
> > of those are known to the vast majority of English-speakers.
>
> Because the English is derived from a Latin term (possibly via French
> for all I know).

So what? People (pace Chomsky/Halle) do not carry etymological dictionaries
in their heads.

> Why do you think the "ea" in "theatre/-ter" is
> pronounced as two vowels?

Soemtimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Words are usually pronounced the way the
surrounding speech community pronounces them, and it's rare to need oral
communication between generations more than two steps apart. (It's still
fairly unusual for children to know their great-grandparents.)

> Why should the fact that it comes from
> Greek θέατρον via Latin _theatrum_ have anything to do with the
> English pronunciation, seeking that the vast majority of
> English-speakers are most likely not aware of those languages?

It does and should have nothing whatsoever to do with those facts.

> It's clear that we should be saying [ˈθiːtə(r)], not [ˈθiətə(r)]!

And many of "us" do.

> >> But, really, even without that, "ideal"
> >> is an obvious adjectival derivation from "idea"
> >
> > Not "obviously" in the slightest. I have no such intuition.
>
> So, you are unfamiliar with the adjectival suffix -al, despite its
> being quite common in words of Latin origin? (It's even fairly common
> in words of non-Latin origin.) I think you are being disingenuous.

"Ideal" doesn't have any sugestion of "idea-like" for me. AFAIC it's
monomorphemic.

> >> - it should be
> >> expected that the "e" and "a" would be pronounced separately.
> >
> > Just like divine/divinity serene/serenity profound/profundity, where each of
> > the diphthongs pairs with a -- oops, monophthong?
>
> You know perfectly well that those are not parallels. Please try to
> be serious.

I can't take seriously the notion that "ideal" has anything synchronically
to do with "idea."

[Stan Brown]

On 18 Jan 2016 18:13:13 GMT, John Varela wrote:
> So am I and it has three for me. The tongue has to go back in the
> mouth to make the l sound, and I can't do that without inserting a
> Schwa. That's the same schwa that creates the second syllable of
> "idle".

So you rate heel, feel, peel, reel, deal, keel as two syllables each?
I wouldn't.

What you call a schwa, I call the second element of a diphthong. I
don't think of it as an additional syllable.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the
/right/ word is ... the difference between the lightning-bug
and the lightning." --Mark Twain

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Jan-18 12:51, Lewis wrote:
> In message <n7hfjl$jjf$1...@dont-email.me>
> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2016-Jan-17 23:55, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <n7g1t7$pf3$1...@news.albasani.net>

>>> Justin Thyme <Justi...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> How many syllables are there in the word "books"?
>>>

>>> One.

>>>
>>>> Also, for British English is "syllable" (and "word" too I suppose!) well
>>>> enough defined for the question "how many syllables are there in the
>>>> word ...?" to always get a clear answer?
>>>

>>> Mostly. There are regionalisms.
>
>> I am having trouble thinking of any dialect of English where "books" has
>> more than one syllable, but there's probably someone somewhere who
>> stretches the "oo" into a long diphthong.
>

> The question I answered had nothing to do with the word book.

True. That's why I quoted the OP as well as you.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter Moylan]

It's a question of dialect. In many AmE dialects, the word is pronounced
as "what" followed by a syllabic R. It's BrE that has war+ter.

(One more example of why there can't exist a phonemic notation that
covers both BrE and AmE.)

[Robert Bannister]

I don't understand that. Why do you take your tongue out of your mouth
in the first place? When I say "ideal" the L is formed by the tip of my
tongue somewhere near the ridge in the roof of my mouth. No extra
syllables are involved. I can also say it London style "eye-diw" and
it's still just two syllables.

--
Robert B.

[Robert Bannister]

Do you do that with "meat" too?

--
Robert B.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <20160118215223....@lundhansen.dk>,

Well, yes it does. However above since PTD began with ". . .your way of
dividing. . .", it seems reasonable to assume that the other "yous"
(hmm) referred to him as well.

Otherwise there should have been a signal that the switch[1] had been
made.

[1] did you see what I did there?

--
charles

[Richard Tobin]

In article <MPG.310748f42...@news.individual.net>,

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>So you rate heel, feel, peel, reel, deal, keel as two syllables each?
>I wouldn't.

It seems to me that their is a continuum in how they can be pronounced,
with one end being very like two syllables. Some words tend more
to that end of others, and for me "Neil" and "kneel" are very
much at the two syllable end.

-- Richard

[David Kleinecke]

I would call this effect (probably incorrectly) drawl. In some people's
speech it effects all the diphthongs (even the one in "beauty") - other
people none. It seems to be partly dialectic and partly idiolectic.

[Peter Moylan]

There are at least two ways to pronounce the L. You can take you tongue
a fair way back in your mouth, or you can use a down-curving tongue with
the tip behind your bottom teeth. Or, of course, anywhere between those
extremes.

My L is about halfway in between those two, and it doesn't force me to
insert a schwa in "ideal". "Idle" is a different matter, because for it
I use a syllabic L formed by slightly lowering the sides of my tongue,
while keeping the tip in the D position, to let air escape from the sides.

[Ross]

It's not daft -- there really are differences among English
speakers as to the number of syllables in certain words and
groups of words.
What is daft is people trying to dream up reasons why their
syllable-count is "right" and the others are "wrong".

[Will Parsons]

Because you stated them as such. I stated that *I* normally consider
"ideal" ("higher", "royal") as trisyllables; *you* stated
categorically they are disyllabic.

>> >> >> > Do you pronounce "wheel" and "weal" differently? "meet" and "meat"?
>> >> >> No - why should I? The distinction has nothing to do with the fact
>> >> >> that the combination "ea" may denote a single vowel in many English
>> >> >> words - in "ideal" it doesn't.
>> >> > I think you're influenced by the spelling -- but my two examples show that
>> >> > you shouldn't be.
>> >>
>> >> You're mistaken. I may, though, be influenced in pronouncing the two
>> >> vowels separately by comparison with (Late) Latin _idealis_, or French
>> >> _idéal_, or Spanish _ideal_.
>> >
>> > Why should any of those have anything to do with English pronunciation? None
>> > of those are known to the vast majority of English-speakers.
>>
>> Because the English is derived from a Latin term (possibly via French
>> for all I know).
>
> So what? People (pace Chomsky/Halle) do not carry etymological dictionaries
> in their heads.

Sure they do. If people know that "naive" is borrowed from French
(and I'll bet a *lot* of even moderately educated English speakers
know that, even if they've never studied French), that will influence
them to give a pronunciation similar to [naˈiːv], rather than [neɪv],
for example.

>> Why do you think the "ea" in "theatre/-ter" is
>> pronounced as two vowels?
>
> Soemtimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

Isn't that what I said earlier, when I said that "ea" is *sometimes*
used to indicate a single vowel, but sometimes (as in "ideal") it
isn't? You implied ('Do you pronounce "wheel" and "weal" differently?
"meet" and "meat"?') that you thought that "ea" would automatically
indicate a single vowel, so why should I consider it would be
different in "ideal"?

> Words are usually pronounced the way the
> surrounding speech community pronounces them, and it's rare to need oral
> communication between generations more than two steps apart. (It's still
> fairly unusual for children to know their great-grandparents.)

Irrelevant in this case. People have been using 'ideal' for quite a
while without any break in oral transmission.

>> Why should the fact that it comes from
>> Greek θέατρον via Latin _theatrum_ have anything to do with the
>> English pronunciation, seeking that the vast majority of
>> English-speakers are most likely not aware of those languages?
>
> It does and should have nothing whatsoever to do with those facts.

Really? So *you* happily say "theeter" instead of "theeater", "nave"
instead of "na-eev", "garridge" (just like those Brits!) instead of
"garahzh"? (The list goes on...)

>> It's clear that we should be saying [ˈθiːtə(r)], not [ˈθiətə(r)]!
>
> And many of "us" do.

*You* say [ˈθiːtə(r)]? Well, if you say so...

>> >> But, really, even without that, "ideal"
>> >> is an obvious adjectival derivation from "idea"
>> >
>> > Not "obviously" in the slightest. I have no such intuition.
>>
>> So, you are unfamiliar with the adjectival suffix -al, despite its
>> being quite common in words of Latin origin? (It's even fairly common
>> in words of non-Latin origin.) I think you are being disingenuous.
>
> "Ideal" doesn't have any sugestion of "idea-like" for me. AFAIC it's
> monomorphemic.

In another thread, there is/was a discussion of "fun" & "funny", in
which it was noted that the meaning of "funny" has diverged from that
of "fun". As far as I'm concerned, they're still morphologically
related, despite that semantic divergence. There are a lot of
words/forms like that.

So, If *you* want to consider "ideal" monomorphemic, go right ahead,
but I think you're really stretching here. (Be warned though, I shall
now take any statements you make about Latin based on hear-say, since
you seem to be claiming no knowledge of the language.)

>> >> - it should be
>> >> expected that the "e" and "a" would be pronounced separately.
>> >
>> > Just like divine/divinity serene/serenity profound/profundity, where each of
>> > the diphthongs pairs with a -- oops, monophthong?
>>
>> You know perfectly well that those are not parallels. Please try to
>> be serious.
>
> I can't take seriously the notion that "ideal" has anything synchronically
> to do with "idea."

That's all right. I can't take seriously that you actually believe
half of what you've written above.

--
Will

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 7:52:21 PM UTC-5, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <20160118215223....@lundhansen.dk>,
> Bertel Lund Hansen <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> > David Kleinecke skrev:
> >
> > >> I think it's a good day for Wikipedia, and your way of dividing
> > >> seems strange. If you want to speak slowly, you don't say
> > >> "watt-er", but "waa-ter". If you want to pause between syllables,
> > >> you do it after "wa".
> >
> > > Thank You for explaining what I do to me.
> >
> > I presume that you are aware that "you" in English is used in a
> > general sense. If not, it's high time you learn it.
>
> Well, yes it does. However above since PTD began with ". . .your way of
> dividing. . .",

PTD did nothing of the sort.

Actually it was Bertel.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 10:39:42 PM UTC-5, Will Parsons wrote:

> So, If *you* want to consider "ideal" monomorphemic, go right ahead,
> but I think you're really stretching here. (Be warned though, I shall
> now take any statements you make about Latin based on hear-say, since
> you seem to be claiming no knowledge of the language.)

I am talking about English. Contemporary English. If I were talking about
Latin, I would observe that it seems to have a derivational morpheme.

[Will Parsons]

I thought I'd made it clear that the sequence "ea" *may* indicate a
single vowel in English, but doesn't automatically. "Meat" has
historically a single vowel.

--
Will

[Lewis]

In message <59a4e103-63d4-409e...@googlegroups.com>
pensive hamster <pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Monday, 18 January 2016 13:50:46 UTC, Lewis wrote:
>> Janet wrote:
>> > g.kreme says...
>> >> Peter Moylan wrote:
> [...]
>> >> > He Who Should Be Ignored apparently says Nee-yull, but that's merely a
>> >> > reflection of the fact that "Neil" is pronounced differently in
>> >> > different regions.
>> >>
>> >> You'd think there would be an example in a movie, tv show, podcast, or
>> >> something that reflected this pronunciation. I've seen English language
>> >> films from all around the world and have never heard "nee-yull".
>>
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2njav3lAUFo
>>
>> That is one syllable.

> That YouTube recording sounds like about one and one third syllables
> to me.

Yeah, I'd give you that, but it's certainly not two.


--
Yeah, and I never wanted to kick Albert Einstein in the nuts.

[Lewis]

In message <4186f832-2281-428a...@googlegroups.com>
David Kleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 6:55:04 AM UTC-8, pensive hamster wrote:

>> WP says:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllable
>> 'A syllable is a unit of organization for a sequence of speech sounds.
>> For example, the word water is composed of two syllables: wa and ter.
>> A syllable is typically made up of a syllable nucleus (most often a vowel)
>> with optional initial and final margins (typically, consonants).'
>
> Not Wikipedia's best day. I would divide it as wat+er (/wat.r/)

Not I, it is definitely wa-ter.

--
Nothing is impossible for those who don't have to do it.

[Lewis]

In message <MPG.3107350...@news.individual.net>
Janet <nob...@home.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnn9prdg....@amelia.local>,
> g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies says...
>>
>> In message <MPG.3106d94...@news.individual.net>
>> Janet <nob...@home.org> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnn9ohe1....@amelia.local>,
>> > g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies says...

>
>> >> You'd think there would be an example in a movie, tv show, podcast, or
>> >> something that reflected this pronunciation. I've seen English language
>> >> films from all around the world and have never heard "nee-yull".
>>
>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2njav3lAUFo
>>
>> That is one syllable.

> It is an example of "nee-yull" ,for the benefit of the previous
> poster who had never heard it said that way and asked for an example.

Which was me.

And it still sounds like one syllable to me, though the speaker is
obviously trying to stretch it.

--
"Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary
and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that’s
invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty- five is new and exciting
and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything
invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of
things." -- Douglas Adams

[RH Draney]

Heard one on the radio earlier tonight in a folk-song and made a mental
note to mention it here...the song was about snow, and the word
"shoveling" was repeated many times, often in a row, with three
syllables each time...I wouldn't have blinked had it been "shove-ling",
had the meter of the song demanded it, but I wonder if the Brits (who I
assume spell the word with a double L) would be as forgiving....r

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Richard Tobin skrev:

>>So you rate heel, feel, peel, reel, deal, keel as two syllables each?
>>I wouldn't.

> It seems to me that their is a continuum in how they can be pronounced,
> with one end being very like two syllables. Some words tend more
> to that end of others, and for me "Neil" and "kneel" are very
> much at the two syllable end.

I don't think of it as two syllables. Some years ago I heard a
presenter in a tv show series called "The Fifth Wheel" pronounce
wheel with a multithongue. I see even that as one syllable. If I
cut up her word and present the bits as separate words, they
would be something like "we-are-earl".

The pronunciation is quite normal (American I believe), and it is
not my point to suggest otherwise. My own pronunciation of
"wheel" has no diphthongue whatsoever.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Peter Moylan skrev:

> There are at least two ways to pronounce the L. You can take you tongue
> a fair way back in your mouth, or you can use a down-curving tongue with
> the tip behind your bottom teeth.

It's impossible for me to produce an L with my tongue behind my
bottom teeth. I think you mean the upper teeth.

I produce a Danish and a British L in "ideal" by placing the tip
of the tongue just behind my upper teeth. I thereby also round
the middle of the tongue a bit.

I can try to place the tongue further back and round the tongue.
That is my approximation of what I think of as an American L,
but that is not natural for me (and might not be entirely
correct).

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Charles Bishop skrev:

>> I presume that you are aware that "you" in English is used in a
>> general sense. If not, it's high time you learn it.

> Well, yes it does. However above since PTD began with ". . .your way of
> dividing. . .", it seems reasonable to assume that the other "yous"
> (hmm) referred to him as well.

I see that now. I should have been more precise in my writing.

> Otherwise there should have been a signal that the switch[1] had been
> made.

> [1] did you see what I did there?

No, I don't know what you mean (unless it's the wordplay on
"switch" and "signal").

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Bertel Lund Hansen skrev:

> The pronunciation is quite normal (American I believe), and it is
> not my point to suggest otherwise. My own pronunciation of
> "wheel" has no diphthongue whatsoever.

... in the ee-section.

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Jan-19 21:23, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Peter Moylan skrev:
>
>> There are at least two ways to pronounce the L. You can take you tongue
>> a fair way back in your mouth, or you can use a down-curving tongue with
>> the tip behind your bottom teeth.
>
> It's impossible for me to produce an L with my tongue behind my
> bottom teeth. I think you mean the upper teeth.

I definitely meant the bottom teeth. For this version of the L, though,
the precise position of the tip of the tongue is irrelevant, because
it's the middle of the tongue that is touching the roof of the mouth.
Putting the tip behind the bottom teeth is just a way of keeping it out
of the way.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Peter Moylan skrev:

> I definitely meant the bottom teeth. For this version of the L, though,
> the precise position of the tip of the tongue is irrelevant, because
> it's the middle of the tongue that is touching the roof of the mouth.
> Putting the tip behind the bottom teeth is just a way of keeping it out
> of the way.

I don't think that the sound I produce in this way, would be
recognized as an L by anyone. But I'll take your word for it.

[CDB]

> On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 7:52:21 PM UTC-5, Charles Bishop
> wrote:

[whose on first]

>> it seems reasonable to assume that the other "yous" (hmm) referred
>> to him as well.

>> Otherwise there should have been a signal that the switch[1] had
>> been made.

>> [1] did you see what I did there?

Better, on the whole, to wait a few seconds and then look about indignantly.

[Jerry Friedman]

By the way, it's "diphthong", and the word you want might be
"multiphthong", only "polyphthong" would be all Greek, if that matters.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Charles Bishop]

In article <n7lcpi$52b$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, CDB <belle...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I had my coat on, just in case. Not up to HL's standards I know, but
what's a poor amatuer to do?

--
charles

[Peter T. Daniels]

The distinctive part of an [l] is that it's a lateral -- the air escapes
around the sides of the tongue.

They can be either "clear" (tongue-tip contact) or "dark" (tongue-root
bunched) (and there's a myth afoot in England that all AmE l's are dark),
but phonemically it doesn't matter, though the difference is actually
audible. The familiar BrE (Estuary only?) /l/ > [w] is an intensifying
of "dark l."

[Robert Bannister]

So are "bait" "beat" and "bite" two-syllable words for you too, and if
not, why not? Might it have something to do with the L?
--
Robert B.

[John Varela]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:10:15 UTC, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On 18 Jan 2016 18:13:13 GMT, John Varela wrote:
> > So am I and it has three for me. The tongue has to go back in the
> > mouth to make the l sound, and I can't do that without inserting a
> > Schwa. That's the same schwa that creates the second syllable of
> > "idle".
>

> So you rate heel, feel, peel, reel, deal, keel as two syllables each?
> I wouldn't.

No. The d in ideal and idle puts the tongue way forward and there's
no way I can get it back for the l sound without that second vowel
coming in. In all of the words you list, the tongue is already back
before making the l sound. Except, of course, for deal. That's just
the same syllable weve been discussing already.

> What you call a schwa, I call the second element of a diphthong. I
> don't think of it as an additional syllable.

I can accept that. Call it two and a half syllables.

--
John Varela

[John Varela]

To make the n sound of those two words, the tongue is forward just
as it is for the d in ideal or deal.

--
John Varela

[Jerry Friedman]

For me it's totally about the L. "Feel", "sale", "tile" are all two
syllables.

I've heard people pronounce "schedule" with three syllables, but I don't.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Richard Yates]

I'm at about 1.5 syllables for the short words in this thread, but
"schedule" is clearly three (and none of that hard 'ch' nonsense
either).

[pensive hamster]

On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 13:35:01 UTC, Richard Yates wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:29:01 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >On 1/19/16 5:26 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> >> On 19/01/2016 10:06 am, Richard Tobin wrote:

> >>> Stan Brown wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> So you rate heel, feel, peel, reel, deal, keel as two syllables each?
> >>>> I wouldn't.
> >>>
> >>> It seems to me that their is a continuum in how they can be pronounced,
> >>> with one end being very like two syllables. Some words tend more
> >>> to that end of others, and for me "Neil" and "kneel" are very
> >>> much at the two syllable end.
> >>
> >> So are "bait" "beat" and "bite" two-syllable words for you too, and if
> >> not, why not? Might it have something to do with the L?
> >
> >For me it's totally about the L. "Feel", "sale", "tile" are all two
> >syllables.
> >
> >I've heard people pronounce "schedule" with three syllables, but I don't.
>
> I'm at about 1.5 syllables for the short words in this thread, but
> "schedule" is clearly three (and none of that hard 'ch' nonsense
> either).

And why does "syllable" have three syllables? Wouldn't it
be more logical to use a word with just one syllable?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Indeed. And a related question: Why is "monosyllabic" polysyllabic?

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Jerry Friedman]

Can we send you back to wherever you came from?

--
Jerry Friedman

[BCD]

***But you'd still be stuck with me. /My/ "schedule," /with/ that hard
'ch' nonsense, is trisyllabic: sked-you-wool.

Best Wishes,

--BCD