Pronunciation of "species"

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Hi all

Today I watched a bit of a tv show with Simon Reeves. He
travelled around the world and visited different areas - in this
case Hawaii.

He told about some species that are/were specific for Hawaii and
how they were endangered or extinct. He pronounced the word
"species" as "speshies". Is this a common pronunciation?

I am quite sure. He used the word several times.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <5308dbec$0$297$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,

Common enough to be listed in most dictionaries. I've heard it, but only
rarely in American English.

[Guy Barry]

"Bertel Lund Hansen" wrote in message
news:5308dbec$0$297$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

Standard pronunciation here as far as I know - /'spi:Si:z/. My dictionary
gives nothing else.

--
Guy Barry

[musika]

If you mean Spee-shies, as I think you do, then I would say it is the
most common pronunciation in BriE.

--
Ray
UK

[Nathan Sanders]

I can't tell from your spelling, but I'm assuming that you're asking
only about the medial consonant and not also the vowel of the first
syllable. So, assuming that "speshies" is meant to represent /spiSiz/
(first syllable like "specious") rather than /spESiz/ (first syllable
like "special"), then it's very common in American English. Both M-W
and AHD list it first, with /spisiz/ listed second.

If in fact you were also asking about the vowel, then no, /spESiz/ is
not a common pronunciation, and would be considered a mistake.

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org

[Steve Hayes]

I pronounce it that way, though I'm sure white Rhodesians (Road-ee-see-ans)
would pronounce it "spee-sees", just as they pronounce "issue" as "iss you".


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Stan Brown]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:20:38 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> He told about some species that are/were specific for Hawaii and
> how they were endangered or extinct. He pronounced the word
> "species" as "speshies". Is this a common pronunciation?
>

It's how I pronounce the word, and AFAIK it's standard AmE. I'm
quite sure that that's the pronunciation I learned in science classes
in the 1960s.

AHD4 gives both pronunciations in print, but the sound file contains
only the -sh- pronunciation.

Hard money, specie, is "speshe", isn't it? Something apparently
valid but really not is specious, "speshous", isn't it?

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

[James Silverton]

On 2/22/2014 1:19 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 18:20:38 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen
> <kanon...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Today I watched a bit of a tv show with Simon Reeves. He
>> travelled around the world and visited different areas - in this
>> case Hawaii.
>>
>> He told about some species that are/were specific for Hawaii and
>> how they were endangered or extinct. He pronounced the word
>> "species" as "speshies". Is this a common pronunciation?
>>
>> I am quite sure. He used the word several times.
>
>
> I pronounce it that way, though I'm sure white Rhodesians (Road-ee-see-ans)
> would pronounce it "spee-sees", just as they pronounce "issue" as "iss you".
>
>

I think I usually pronounce species as in "spee she's". In other
notation /spiSiz/ tho' /spisiz/ does not seem wrong.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

[Peter T. Daniels]

? How else would one pronounce it?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:40:50 PM UTC-5, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> On 2014-02-22 17:20:38 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:

> > He told about some species that are/were specific for Hawaii and
> > how they were endangered or extinct. He pronounced the word
> > "species" as "speshies". Is this a common pronunciation?
>

> I can't tell from your spelling, but I'm assuming that you're asking
> only about the medial consonant and not also the vowel of the first
> syllable.

> If in fact you were also asking about the vowel, then no, /spESiz/ is
> not a common pronunciation, and would be considered a mistake.

Oh, fer cryin' out loud.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

musika skrev:

> If you mean Spee-shies, as I think you do, then I would say it
> is the most common pronunciation in BriE.

That surprised me as I automatically would have used a straight
s-sound as in "special".

Does anyone pronounce that word with a sh-sound?

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Mark Brader]

> > If you mean Spee-shies, as I think you do, then I would say it
> > is the most common pronunciation in BriE.
>
> That surprised me as I automatically would have used a straight
> s-sound as in "special".

Huh?

> Does anyone pronounce that word with a sh-sound?

Sure. I would have said SPESH'll is the only pronunciation.
--
Mark Brader | "The right thinks the individual
Toronto | isn't important enough to make the decisions
m...@vex.net | and the left thinks that decisions are
| too important to be left to the individual." --Nick Atty

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Mark Brader skrev:

>> That surprised me as I automatically would have used a straight
>> s-sound as in "special".

> Huh?

I realize now that there are some English s-sounds that I have to
study. The sh-sound is by no means unknown in Danish, but we do
not automatically use it in words like "special" and "species".

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Robert Bannister]

Surely "speeshees".

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Robert Bannister]

Does anyone not pronounce it with sh?

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2014-02-22, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> I pronounce it that way, though I'm sure white Rhodesians (Road-ee-see-ans)
> would pronounce it "spee-sees", just as they pronounce "issue" as "iss you".

That's just part of a pattern of English sound shifts from the last
few centuries[1]:

/sj/ > /S/
/zj/ > /Z/
/tj/ > /tS/
/dj/ > /dZ/

(Where /j/ may also be /i/ before another vowel.)

This change has been applied inconsistently across the vocabulary
and dialects of English, which leads to the variant pronunciations
for words like "issue".

It's particularly interesting how this shift has competed with the
dropping of /j/ in this position. I can only assume that "sugar"
and "sure" got their initial /S/ from earlier /sj/, but the same
hasn't happened for "suit". North American English has largely
dropped the /j/ from the sequences /tju/ and /dju/, but not before
"education" gained /dZ/; etc. etc.


----
[1] If you have the British Library's _Shakespeare's Original
Pronunciation_ CD, you'll notice that this shift had not yet
happened in Shakespeare's time. I'll take David Crystal's word
for it.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 07:39:19 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:

>On 23/02/2014 1:20 am, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Today I watched a bit of a tv show with Simon Reeves. He
>> travelled around the world and visited different areas - in this
>> case Hawaii.
>>
>> He told about some species that are/were specific for Hawaii and
>> how they were endangered or extinct. He pronounced the word
>> "species" as "speshies". Is this a common pronunciation?
>>
>> I am quite sure. He used the word several times.
>>
>Surely "speeshees".

I wonder how Sean Connery pronounces "species".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Stan Brown]

On Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:18:37 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
> musika skrev:
>
> > If you mean Spee-shies, as I think you do, then I would say it
> > is the most common pronunciation in BriE.
>
> That surprised me as I automatically would have used a straight
> s-sound as in "special".

"Special" doesn't have a straight s-sound in the second syllable.
It's SPEH-sh'l.

> Does anyone pronounce that word with a sh-sound?

Everyone I've ever heard pronounces it that way. AHD4 gives _only_
the -sh- pronunciation.

[R H Draney]

Bertel Lund Hansen filted:

It's automatic in English, which is why some places don't even recognize the
pronunciation "spee-seez" as valid....

How do you say "atrocious"?...r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[R H Draney]

Tony Cooper filted:

>
>On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 07:39:19 +0800, Robert Bannister
><rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>>On 23/02/2014 1:20 am, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>> He pronounced the word
>>> "species" as "speshies". Is this a common pronunciation?
>>>

>>Surely "speeshees".
>
>I wonder how Sean Connery pronounces "species".

"shpeesheesh"....r

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 6:40:23 PM UTC-5, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 23/02/2014 4:18 am, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
> > musika skrev:
>
> >
>
> >> If you mean Spee-shies, as I think you do, then I would say it
>
> >> is the most common pronunciation in BriE.
>
> >
>
> > That surprised me as I automatically would have used a straight
>
> > s-sound as in "special".
>
> >
>
> > Does anyone pronounce that word with a sh-sound?
>
> >
>
> Does anyone not pronounce it with sh?

Nathan was pretending he thought Bertel was _starting_ <species>
with an sh-sound, because he wrote <Speshees> (or something like
that), and Nathan pretended the capital S was the ASCII-IPA symbol
for the sh-sound, rather than the capital S at the beginning of a
sentence.

[Guy Barry]

"Bertel Lund Hansen" wrote in message

news:530905a3$0$295$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

Someone ought to do a study of the assumptions non-native speakers make
about English pronunciation. When I was last here there was a German
speaker who was convinced that "of" was pronounced with the same consonant
as "off", and was genuinely surprised to discover that this was not the
case. My theory is that if the spelling leads speakers to assimilate the
pronunciation to that of their own language, they will tend to do so even if
they have never in fact heard that pronunciation.

As far as I know, *all* English words ending in "-cial" have the "sh"-sound:
special, racial, facial, social, financial, judicial, provincial etc. I
don't think there are any exceptions. The same applies to other endings in
"ci" + vowel where the "i" is not separately pronounced: suspicion,
atrocious, judiciary etc.

If the "i" is separately pronounced, things are less clear-cut. The usual
pronunciation of "associate" is with the "sh"-sound but I wouldn't regard
the "s"-sound as completely wrong. "Enunciate" always has the "s"-sound in
my experience. And for nouns in "-ciation", the tendency is to use the
"s"-sound in order to avoid the awkwardness of two "sh"-sounds in close
succession: I would guess that "a-soh-see-AY-shun" is commoner than
"a-soh-shee-AY-shun", though I've heard both.

Incidentally, all the above applies to endings in "ti" + vowel as well (e.g.
partial, seditious, initiate, negotiation).

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
news:218b0b01-31cd-4242...@googlegroups.com...

Nathan was not involved in the exchange you quoted. And, as I recall, the
bit he misunderstood (wilfully or otherwise) was about the pronunciation of
the first "e".

--
Guy Barry

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

R H Draney skrev:

> How do you say "atrocious"?

Before looking up the correct pronunciation:

a-'trou-si-us (i = short ee)

and that repeats the error. I'll really have to work on that
because the sh-sound does not come natural to me in such words.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Guy Barry skrev:

> Someone ought to do a study of the assumptions non-native speakers make
> about English pronunciation. When I was last here there was a German
> speaker who was convinced that "of" was pronounced with the same consonant
> as "off", and was genuinely surprised to discover that this was not the
> case.

That case differs from mine. No German could mishear the English
"of" as "off". Few Danes would on the other hand notice that an
sh-sound was replaced by an s-sound, particularly in words that
we use in Danish. We have "speciel" and "specie" with two
s-sounds ("specie" is a kind of cookies).

> My theory is that if the spelling leads speakers to assimilate
> the pronunciation to that of their own language, they will
> tend to do so even if they have never in fact heard that
> pronunciation.

I think that is right - particularly if the speaker has never
heard the correct pronunciation.

I was taught well in school, also as far as correct pronunciation
was concerned, but I expanded my vocabulary through reading, and
that has given me a few erroneous pronunciations. The s/sh-error
is a clear example of my Danish habit sneaking into my English.

> As far as I know, *all* English words ending in "-cial" have
> the "sh"-sound: special, racial, facial, social, financial,
> judicial, provincial etc. I don't think there are any
> exceptions. The same applies to other endings in "ci" + vowel
> where the "i" is not separately pronounced: suspicion,
> atrocious, judiciary etc.

> If the "i" is separately pronounced, things are less clear-cut.
> The usual pronunciation of "associate" is with the "sh"-sound
> but I wouldn't regard the "s"-sound as completely wrong.
> "Enunciate" always has the "s"-sound in my experience. And
> for nouns in "-ciation", the tendency is to use the "s"-sound
> in order to avoid the awkwardness of two "sh"-sounds in close
> succession: I would guess that "a-soh-see-AY-shun" is commoner
> than "a-soh-shee-AY-shun", though I've heard both.

> Incidentally, all the above applies to endings in "ti" + vowel as well (e.g.
> partial, seditious, initiate, negotiation).

Thanks. This is useful advice, and I can use the list of
-cial-words to practise.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[musika]

Shpeesheezh.

--
Ray
UK

[Guy Barry]

"Bertel Lund Hansen" wrote in message

news:5309ac77$0$296$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

As well the the wrong consonant, you've got the wrong number of syllables.
The "i" is not pronounced separately in such words.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Bertel Lund Hansen" wrote in message

news:5309b021$0$304$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...

>
>Guy Barry skrev:
>
>> Someone ought to do a study of the assumptions non-native speakers make
>> about English pronunciation. When I was last here there was a German
>> speaker who was convinced that "of" was pronounced with the same
>> consonant
>> as "off", and was genuinely surprised to discover that this was not the
>> case.
>
>That case differs from mine. No German could mishear the English
>"of" as "off".

That's where you're wrong. If you speak a language that doesn't have voiced
final consonants, you need to be specially trained to hear them. If the
spelling disguises the fact that the final consonant is voiced, it's
possible to be completely unaware of the fact. I'll try to track the thread
down - I've temporarily forgotten who the speaker was but he was a regular
poster. Not quite sure what to search for though - "of" and "off" are
clearly no good. I've a feeling it was based in that interminable "square
meters/Olympic questions" thread that went on for thousands of posts and
covered every conceivable subject.

And the new Google Groups interface is terrible for searching. I'm sure I
managed to get the "Advanced Search" page from the old version up once, but
I've no idea how.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Guy Barry" wrote in message news:gljOu.16762$%I1.1...@fx02.am4...

>
>"Bertel Lund Hansen" wrote in message
>news:5309b021$0$304$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>>
>>Guy Barry skrev:
>>
>>> Someone ought to do a study of the assumptions non-native speakers make
>>> about English pronunciation. When I was last here there was a German
>>> speaker who was convinced that "of" was pronounced with the same
>>> consonant
>>> as "off", and was genuinely surprised to discover that this was not the
>>> case.
>>
>>That case differs from mine. No German could mishear the English
>>"of" as "off".
>
>That's where you're wrong. If you speak a language that doesn't have
>voiced final consonants, you need to be specially trained to hear them. If
>the spelling disguises the fact that the final consonant is voiced, it's
>possible to be completely unaware of the fact. I'll try to track the
>thread down - I've temporarily forgotten who the speaker was but he was a
>regular poster.

Found it now. The poster was Joachim Pense (thread crossposted to sci.lang)
and the date is 18 September 2012. The new Google Groups makes it virtual
impossible for me to link to the post, so I'll quote it here:

--------

Am 18.09.2012 11:31, schrieb Guy Barry:
>
>
> "Joachim Pense" wrote in message
news:abqe8i...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> As a non-NSOE (from Germany), I would have expected that the final
>> consonant be pronounced differently: a voiceless eff in "could of",
>> and a voiced vee in "could've". How come they are pronounced equally?
>
> In all dialects of English that I'm aware of, the final consonant of
> "of" is voiced. In my dialect that's the only thing that distinguishes
> the emphatic pronunciation of "of" from "off".
>
> Where did you learn English? "Of" is one of the commonest words in the
> language and I can't imagine you weren't taught that the "f" is voiced.
> (I think it may be the only word in the language where it is.)
>

I learned it in Germany, I lived in England for a year (in 1980), and in
California for a couple of months (in 1995), but I never noticed.

As you might know, in a typical German accent, "love" rhymes with
"enough", and "of" sounds just like "off". With some concentration, I
manage to make "love" not rhyme with "enough".

My English teachers where happy if we were able to pronounce the "th"
sounds; I don't recall them ever even mentioning voiced final consonants
in English. I am aware of the distinction, of course; but that "of" and
"off" sound different, really is surprising news to me. After all these
years...

--------

I was as surprised as you are at the time, but I don't think he was in any
way unusual.

--
Guy Barry

[Stan Brown]

I don't think most native speakers would notice the -s- pronunciation
in such words. I probably wouldn't, unless I was listening for it.
But the extra syllable would be noticed and would sound wrong.

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 07:07:11 -0000, Guy Barry wrote:
> Someone ought to do a study of the assumptions non-native speakers make
> about English pronunciation. When I was last here there was a German
> speaker who was convinced that "of" was pronounced with the same consonant
> as "off", and was genuinely surprised to discover that this was not the
> case. My theory is that if the spelling leads speakers to assimilate the
> pronunciation to that of their own language, they will tend to do so even if
> they have never in fact heard that pronunciation.

I think Paul Pimsleur did, or at least he was a keen observer.

The Pimsleur Method of language instruction is almost entirely aural,
and we are told in so many words not to write things down or seek out
written materials, because then we will tend to pronounce the other
language as though the letters had their English values -- just as
your German pronounced "of" as though it were German.

I've been studying Spanish using this approach, and it seems to work
pretty well for conversation. But a lot of what I do at work is
emails or IM, and I'm still almost entirely illiterate in Spanish, so
I've begun cheating, using Google Translate and then matching it
against what I've learned from the CDs.

[Stan Brown]

On 23 Feb 2014 09:24:51 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Your assumption that a non-native speaker can hear a
> pronunciation does not apply, because his hearing is not
> objective, but his hearing substitutes the sounds and sound
> sequences that are in the air by similar sounds and sounds
> sequences of his native language, without him being
> conscious of that.

obAUE: Replace A _with_ B, substitute B _for_ A. (It's a little
different in BrE, I believe.)

When you substitute C _by_ D, I can't tell whether you mean C is out
and D is in, or D is out and C is in.

[Guy Barry]

"Stan Brown" wrote in message
news:MPG.2d73a5f46...@news.individual.net...

>
>On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 09:16:37 -0000, Guy Barry wrote:
>>
>> "Bertel Lund Hansen" wrote in message
>> news:5309ac77$0$296$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>> >
>> >R H Draney skrev:
>> >
>> >> How do you say "atrocious"?
>> >
>> >Before looking up the correct pronunciation:
>> >
>> > a-'trou-si-us (i = short ee)
>> >
>> >and that repeats the error. I'll really have to work on that
>> >because the sh-sound does not come natural to me in such words.
>>
>> As well the the wrong consonant, you've got the wrong number of
>> syllables.
>> The "i" is not pronounced separately in such words.
>
>I don't think most native speakers would notice the -s- pronunciation
>in such words. I probably wouldn't, unless I was listening for it.
>But the extra syllable would be noticed and would sound wrong.

Well I would certainly notice if someone said "a-TRO-sus" instead of
"a-TRO-shus". If they said "a-TRO-shi-us" with four syllables it would
sound a bit pedantic, but not entirely wrong.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Stan Brown" wrote in message

news:MPG.2d73a83fe...@news.individual.net...

>
>On 23 Feb 2014 09:24:51 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Your assumption that a non-native speaker can hear a
>> pronunciation does not apply, because his hearing is not
>> objective, but his hearing substitutes the sounds and sound
>> sequences that are in the air by similar sounds and sounds
>> sequences of his native language, without him being
>> conscious of that.
>
>obAUE: Replace A _with_ B, substitute B _for_ A. (It's a little
>different in BrE, I believe.)

I posted about this very recently, but can't find it, even using the
facility that musika helpfully pointed out. I don't like the "substitute A
by B" construction at all, for the reasons you give, but it's regrettably
become rather common.

>When you substitute C _by_ D, I can't tell whether you mean C is out
>and D is in, or D is out and C is in.

It's used to mean the same as "replace C with D" or "substitute D for C".
According to Burchfield, it goes back to the 18th century, but fell out of
favour in the early 20th century. It seems to be back with a vengeance now,
especially in the game of football (soccer), where "X was substituted" means
that a substitute (player) came on to replace X, not that X came on to
replace someone else. Horribly confusing.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Stefan Ram" wrote in message
news:pronunciation-...@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de...

> Some things a native speaker of German might have to learn:
>
> omitted vowels: »executes« -> (often) »excutes«

Not as far as I'm aware. Three syllables is the only pronunciation I'm
familiar with.

> weakening: many different vowel graphems, such as »i«,
> »u«, or »o« can share the same pronunciation when they
> become a schwa: ultimate -> /@lt@mIt/

That's /'VltIm@t/ for me. In BrE, "i" doesn't normally get reduced to schwa
in unstressed syllables.
>
> »i« sometimes is not /AI/ as in »life«, but »ee«: »tier«
> (not like »tire«), »via« (not like »why-ah«), »italics«
> starts with /AI/, but »iteration« with /I/, »directory«
> (not as in »dire«)

Where are you getting all of these from? I pronounce "via" with /aI/
(though I've heard /i:/) and "italics" with /I/. "Directory" can have
either /I/ or /aI/ as far as I'm concerned.

> there are rules for voicing of final consonants, one
> cannot simply read the consonant's grapheme to learn the
> voicing

Yes you can, unless it's "s". ("Of" is a one-off exception.) Final "s" is
normally only /z/ as part of the morpheme "-es", or after a voiced
consonant. Otherwise it's /s/. All other consonants have their usual
values at the end of words as far as I know.

--

Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 09:16:37 -0000, "Guy Barry"

I seem to recall that a few, a very few, English upper-class, posh,
RP-speakers do, or did, pronounce the "i" separately in at least some
"-ious" words.

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

[Guy Barry]

"Guy Barry" wrote in message news:E5mOu.12271$VM1....@fx30.am4...

>Yes you can, unless it's "s". ("Of" is a one-off exception.) Final "s" is
>normally only /z/ as part of the morpheme "-es", or after a voiced
>consonant. Otherwise it's /s/.

And I should add that "is", "has" and "was" have /z/. There are probably
one or two other exceptions, but it's essentially only plurals and third
person singular verb forms that have /z/ (as long as the base form doesn't
end in a voiceless consonant).

Having typed that, I now notice that "species", the word that started this
discussion, is an exception since it's a singular form in "-es". (So are
classical names in "-es" like "Achilles".) These all have /z/ as far as I
know.

--
Guy Barry

[Leslie Danks]

Specious affectation IMO.

--
Les (BrE)
The days are long gone when the equipment for an attempt on Nanga Parbat
comprised stout walking boots, a tweed jacket and a stolen washing line.

[Peter T. Daniels]

That was his _second_ pretended "misunderstanding." You probably have to
review the thread to find the first one.

And, so as not to multiply entities (Occam and all that), I've never
heard the verb "associate" with a sh-sound and can't even imagine it
in my mind's ear with an RP accent. Whereas the other way round is
common: RP [si] = AmE [S] in many words before a reduced vowel.

Maybe you were thinking of the noun. In that case, the [si] vs. [S]
agrees in the two dialects, because of the stress pattern.

[Peter T. Daniels]

sh-sound before a reduced vowel (no stress).

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, February 23, 2014 3:26:05 AM UTC-5, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Guy Barry skrev:

> > Someone ought to do a study of the assumptions non-native speakers make
> > about English pronunciation. When I was last here there was a German
> > speaker who was convinced that "of" was pronounced with the same consonant
> > as "off", and was genuinely surprised to discover that this was not the
> > case.
>
> That case differs from mine. No German could mishear the English
> "of" as "off".

Of course they could. There is no final [v] in German (or any other
voiced stop or fricative).

> Few Danes would on the other hand notice that an
> sh-sound was replaced by an s-sound, particularly in words that
> we use in Danish. We have "speciel" and "specie" with two
> s-sounds ("specie" is a kind of cookies).
>
> > My theory is that if the spelling leads speakers to assimilate
> > the pronunciation to that of their own language, they will
> > tend to do so even if they have never in fact heard that
> > pronunciation.

Not "even if," but "especially if."

> I think that is right - particularly if the speaker has never
> heard the correct pronunciation.
>
> I was taught well in school, also as far as correct pronunciation
> was concerned, but I expanded my vocabulary through reading, and
> that has given me a few erroneous pronunciations. The s/sh-error
> is a clear example of my Danish habit sneaking into my English.
>
> > As far as I know, *all* English words ending in "-cial" have
> > the "sh"-sound: special, racial, facial, social, financial,
> > judicial, provincial etc. I don't think there are any
> > exceptions. The same applies to other endings in "ci" + vowel
> > where the "i" is not separately pronounced: suspicion,
> > atrocious, judiciary etc.

It's much less specific than that. Stress pattern, not identity
of vowel.

> > If the "i" is separately pronounced, things are less clear-cut.
> > The usual pronunciation of "associate" is with the "sh"-sound
> > but I wouldn't regard the "s"-sound as completely wrong.
> > "Enunciate" always has the "s"-sound in my experience. And
> > for nouns in "-ciation", the tendency is to use the "s"-sound
> > in order to avoid the awkwardness of two "sh"-sounds in close
> > succession: I would guess that "a-soh-see-AY-shun" is commoner
> > than "a-soh-shee-AY-shun", though I've heard both.
>
> > Incidentally, all the above applies to endings in "ti" + vowel as well (e.g.
> > partial, seditious, initiate, negotiation).
>
>
>
> Thanks. This is useful advice, and I can use the list of
> -cial-words to practise.

It would be much better to simply learn the principle: sh before reduced
vowel, si before non-reduced (including unstressed) vowel.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Stan Brown skrev:

> The Pimsleur Method of language instruction is almost entirely aural,
> and we are told in so many words not to write things down or seek out
> written materials, because then we will tend to pronounce the other
> language as though the letters had their English values -- just as
> your German pronounced "of" as though it were German.

That is advice I will not follow. I am aware of the drawbacks,
but I wouldn't miss the joy and the help from learning both
written and spoken language when I study a foreign language.

There are patterns that are obvious in writing that you would
miss in spoken language. And I want to be able to use both
'channels'. I can only guess how my writings in this group would
have been, had I learned only spoken English.

> I've been studying Spanish using this approach, and it seems to
> work pretty well for conversation.

Spanish is a language that is so easy to learn to read because
you can learn once and for all how each letter sounds, and you
can learn three simple rules about where the stress is. That's
all. In less than a month one can learn to read (not understand)
all Spanish texts.

With Danish on the other hand I can see a reason for someone
choosing to learn only spoken language. Learning both is like
learning two languages, just like with English.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:04:38 AM UTC-5, Stefan Ram wrote:

> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> >"Stefan Ram" wrote in message

> >>»i« sometimes is not /AI/ as in »life«, but »ee«: »tier«
> >>(not like »tire«), »via« (not like »why-ah«), »italics«
> >>starts with /AI/, but »iteration« with /I/, »directory«
> >>(not as in »dire«)

Definitely never /AI/ in "italic." Jimmy Carter was mocked for
using that vowel in "Iraq" and "Iran," G. W. Bush in "Eye-talian."
Obviously it's regional, but unacceptable in educated GenAm.

> >Where are you getting all of these from? I pronounce "via" with /aI/
>

> Mainly from pronunciation dictionaries of AmE, sometimes
> also from my personal listening experience. It would be too
> much effort for me to list the source of each and every
> pronunciation mentioned, but for »via« I found only /'vi @/
> in NTC's dictionary of American English pronunciation and
> also remember having heard it that way several times.
> Longman and Collins give /vAi@/ and also /vi@/, but Collins
> gives only /vAi@/ for BrE.

Not /vAi@/ in AmE. When I was like 3 years old, my parents made
fun of me for reading a sign on a subway car (we have trains that
go to Brooklyn "via Bridge" or "via Tunnel") that way.

> Sometimes, personal experience helps: All dictionaries give
> both /dZAv@/ and /dZæv@/ for »Java«, but I have heard many
> times now that american programmers say /dZAv@/ for the
> programming language, not /dZæv@/. So I have made an
> observation than cannot be found in pronunciation dictionaries.

That would be the "Barack" problem. BrE apparently doesn't have
an [A] vowel at all, so they very often substitute [æ] where it's
entirely out of place in AmE.

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:144397d6-382b-4c95...@googlegroups.com...

>And, so as not to multiply entities (Occam and all that), I've never
>heard the verb "associate" with a sh-sound and can't even imagine it
>in my mind's ear with an RP accent.

Try listening here then (both pronunciations are given):

http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/associate_1

Macmillan, on the other hand, gives only /s/ for BrE, which surprises me,
though it gives /S/ for "appreciate".

>Maybe you were thinking of the noun. In that case, the [si] vs. [S]
>agrees in the two dialects, because of the stress pattern.

I have only /@'s@US@t/ for the noun (three syllables, schwa in final with
the "sh" sound).

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:308a0429-df09-45c5...@googlegroups.com...

>That would be the "Barack" problem. BrE apparently doesn't have
>an [A] vowel at all

Of course it does - the one that I use in "father". The "Barack" problem
seems to be specific to that name.

--
Guy Barry

[Mark Brader]

Guy Barry:

>> Final "s" is normally only /z/ as part of the morpheme "-es", or
>> after a voiced consonant. Otherwise it's /s/.

> And I should add that "is", "has" and "was" have /z/.

And in some people's dialect, "us".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "The E-Mail of the species is more deadly
m...@vex.net | than the Mail." -- Peter Neumann

[Nathan Sanders]

On 2014-02-23 13:01:44 +0000, Guy Barry said:

> "Guy Barry" wrote in message news:E5mOu.12271$VM1....@fx30.am4...
>
>> Yes you can, unless it's "s". ("Of" is a one-off exception.) Final
>> "s" is normally only /z/ as part of the morpheme "-es", or after a
>> voiced consonant. Otherwise it's /s/.
>
> And I should add that "is", "has" and "was" have /z/. There are
> probably one or two other exceptions, but it's essentially only plurals
> and third person singular verb forms that have /z/ (as long as the base
> form doesn't end in a voiceless consonant).

And possessives and contractions.

> Having typed that, I now notice that "species", the word that started
> this discussion, is an exception since it's a singular form in "-es".
> (So are classical names in "-es" like "Achilles".)

Right: Archimedes, Ceres, Hercules, Hades, Ramses, Ulysses, etc.

> These all have /z/ as far as I know.

There's also "as", which is probably most analogous to "of".

I also came up with "Santa Claus", "his", "diabetes", "series", and
pseudo-plurals like "always", "news", and "nowadays", etc.

Nathan

--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org

[Guy Barry]

"Mark Brader" wrote in message
news:loGdnb8ef8yKj5fO...@vex.net...

>
>Guy Barry:
>>> Final "s" is normally only /z/ as part of the morpheme "-es", or
>>> after a voiced consonant. Otherwise it's /s/.
>
>> And I should add that "is", "has" and "was" have /z/.
>
>And in some people's dialect, "us".

I'd forgotten that. And "as" of course, in all dialects.

And I forgot to say "after a vowel" in my original statement. So many
things to remember...

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I understand the problem to be that in BrE the "a" in "ack" is always
the short-a, /a/.

In BrE all of the "*ack" words listed here have /a/ in "ack".
http://www.onelook.com/?w=*ack&scwo=1&sswo=1

Barack or any other name with the a-before-ck as /A/ is likely to be
mispronounced by BrE speakers.

[Guy Barry]

"Nathan Sanders" wrote in message news:led4as$q0i$1...@dont-email.me...

Yeah, all right, I was talking off the top of my head. Nonetheless I think
it's probably not too hard to come up with a fairly watertight set of rules.
With the exception of classically derived nouns in "-es", the base form of a
noun, verb or adjective almost never ends in the /z/ sound for "s". ("Santa
Claus" is an interesting one though.) It seems to be restricted to form
words and inflected forms (and contractions thereof).

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
news:o25kg95qjfrinl8iq...@4ax.com...

Yes, but it's not as though BrE speakers are incapable of articulating the
correct pronunciation. As you said in an earlier post, if it were spelt
"Barark" then most of them (excluding the rhotic dialects) would get it
right.

In any case, I doubt very much whether AmE speakers would pronounce any of
the words in that list with /A/. So I don't think it's a spelling issue.

My guess is that many AmE speakers (at least those with the father-bother
merger) think of it as "Barock", and pronounce accordingly. That wouldn't
work in BrE.

--
Guy Barry

[Nathan Sanders]

On 2014-02-23 07:49:56 +0000, Guy Barry said:

> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

> news:218b0b01-31cd-4242...@googlegroups.com...

>>
>> Nathan was pretending he thought Bertel was _starting_ <species>
>> with an sh-sound, because he wrote <Speshees> (or something like
>> that), and Nathan pretended the capital S was the ASCII-IPA symbol
>> for the sh-sound, rather than the capital S at the beginning of a
>> sentence.
>
> Nathan was not involved in the exchange you quoted. And, as I recall,
> the bit he misunderstood (wilfully or otherwise) was about the
> pronunciation of the first "e".

I was noting that Bertel's pseudo-phonetic respelling <speshies> could
potentially be read as also suggesting /E/ for the vowel in first
syllable[1] in addition to /S/ for the medial consonant. That is, the
first syllable could be pronounced like either "specious" or "special",
depending on what Bertel intended by using <e> to mark one vowel and
<ie> to mark another.

I'm not sure where "pretending" comes from. The ambiguity is genuine,
as evidenced by Robert Bannister noting the very same issue in his
reply to Bertel ("Surely 'speeshees'"), which shows his preference for
the more usual <ee> over Bertel's <e> and <ie> to represent /i/.

But despite the potential ambiguity of Bertel's <e>, I explicitly said
"I'm assuming you're only asking about the medial consonant", so there
was no misunderstanding on my part (unless my assumption was wrong, and
he did mean /E/ for the first vowel, a contingency I accounted for in
my final line).

Here's the full post:

==========

I can't tell from your spelling, but I'm assuming that you're asking
only about the medial consonant and not also the vowel of the first
syllable. So, assuming that "speshies" is meant to represent /spiSiz/
(first syllable like "specious") rather than /spESiz/ (first syllable
like "special"), then it's very common in American English. Both M-W
and AHD list it first, with /spisiz/ listed second.

If in fact you were also asking about the vowel, then no, /spESiz/ is
not a common pronunciation, and would be considered a mistake.

==========

Since I consistently transcribed the initial consonant with /s/, its
pronunciation was clearly never in question in my post. That's a
bizarre fantasy invented by a mind that is clearly more obsessed with
antagonism than accurracy.

[1] Cf. "cashew", "Cheshire", "bishop", etc., where a singleton vowel
letter before an intervocalic <sh> is pronounced with its "short" value
(/&/, /E/, /I/, etc.) rather than its "long" value. And with <-eshies>
specifically, see also the bands Fleshies and the Freshies:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleshies>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freshies>

[Nathan Sanders]

Oh, of course. I was just trying to be complete!

I have no idea why "Claus" has /z/. It certainly does stand out from
the others.

[Jerry Friedman]

On 2/23/14 7:33 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Stan Brown skrev:
>
>> The Pimsleur Method of language instruction is almost entirely aural,
>> and we are told in so many words not to write things down or seek out
>> written materials, because then we will tend to pronounce the other
>> language as though the letters had their English values -- just as
>> your German pronounced "of" as though it were German.
>
> That is advice I will not follow. I am aware of the drawbacks,
> but I wouldn't miss the joy and the help from learning both
> written and spoken language when I study a foreign language.
>
> There are patterns that are obvious in writing that you would
> miss in spoken language. And I want to be able to use both
> 'channels'. I can only guess how my writings in this group would
> have been, had I learned only spoken English.

I agree completely, at least for someone like Stan who is obviously
comfortable reading and using grammatical terminology. Otherwise you
end up thinking that "Quiero que se lo d é mañana" contains a reflexive
pronoun and a preposition and not learning that it could mean either "I
want you to give it to him/her tomorrow" or "I want him/her to give it
to you tomorrow" (formal in either case). And you end up not realizing
there's a difference between "sino" ("but" in phrases such as "nothing
but"), "si no" ("if not, unless"), and "sí no" ("really not").

>> I've been studying Spanish using this approach, and it seems to
>> work pretty well for conversation.
>
> Spanish is a language that is so easy to learn to read because
> you can learn once and for all how each letter sounds, and you
> can learn three simple rules about where the stress is. That's
> all. In less than a month one can learn to read (not understand)
> all Spanish texts.

I agree with that too.

> With Danish on the other hand I can see a reason for someone
> choosing to learn only spoken language. Learning both is like
> learning two languages, just like with English.
>


--

Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

And, we now learn, the name "Java."

Where BrE doesn't even have the excuse that it's a closed syllable so
it's absolutely impossible for a "long" vowel to occur.

Why did you delete the antecedent of "That"?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:37:22 AM UTC-5, PeterWD wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 15:00:40 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
> >news:308a0429-df09-45c5...@googlegroups.com...

> >>That would be the "Barack" problem. BrE apparently doesn't have
> >>an [A] vowel at all
> >Of course it does - the one that I use in "father". The "Barack" problem
> >seems to be specific to that name.
>
> I understand the problem to be that in BrE the "a" in "ack" is always
> the short-a, /a/.

That has been adduced before.

> In BrE all of the "*ack" words listed here have /a/ in "ack".
>
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=*ack&scwo=1&sswo=1
>
> Barack or any other name with the a-before-ck as /A/ is likely to be
> mispronounced by BrE speakers.

Which is nothing but rude and disrespectful.

What's the excuse in "Java"?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:20:47 AM UTC-5, Nathan Sanders wrote:

> I have no idea why "Claus" has /z/. It certainly does stand out from
> the others.

You've made that strange assertion before. Perhaps somewhere there's
a small minority that has [z] in <Claus>. A vanishingly small minority.

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:117f62cd-29be-4be0...@googlegroups.com...

>
>On Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:00:40 AM UTC-5, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
>> news:308a0429-df09-45c5...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> >That would be the "Barack" problem. BrE apparently doesn't have
>> >an [A] vowel at all
>>
>> Of course it does - the one that I use in "father". The "Barack" problem
>> seems to be specific to that name.
>
>And, we now learn, the name "Java."

No, I pronounce "Java" as /'dZA:v@/. So do other BrE speakers as far as
I'm aware.

>Where BrE doesn't even have the excuse that it's a closed syllable so
>it's absolutely impossible for a "long" vowel to occur.
>
>Why did you delete the antecedent of "That"?

I can't remember. Whatever it was, it wasn't relevant to the point I was
making.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

news:83f5dfc9-19fb-4ef9...@googlegroups.com...

Like me and everyone else I've ever heard who uses the name?

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/pronunciation/british/Santa-Claus

If you switch to the American pronunciation it gives /z/ as well. How would
that old Marx Brothers joke about "there ain't no sanity clause" have worked
without it?

--
Guy Barry

[Nathan Sanders]

On 2014-02-23 18:46:35 +0000, Guy Barry said:

> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
> news:83f5dfc9-19fb-4ef9...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:20:47 AM UTC-5, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>>
>>> I have no idea why "Claus" has /z/. It certainly does stand out from
>>> the others.
>>
>> You've made that strange assertion before. Perhaps somewhere there's
>> a small minority that has [z] in <Claus>. A vanishingly small minority.
>
> Like me and everyone else I've ever heard who uses the name?

Pretty much.

> http://www.macmillandictionary.com/pronunciation/british/Santa-Claus
>
> If you switch to the American pronunciation it gives /z/ as well.

Final /-z/ is the only pronunciation given in every dictionary I checked:

<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/santa%20claus>

<http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=santa+claus>

<http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/santa-claus>

<http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/american-english/santa-claus>

<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Santa_Claus>

There is of course the issue of the gradient phonetic devoicing that
all obstruents are naturally prone to in English before pauses and
voiceless sounds, so the final sound of "Claus" may often phonetically
be something like [s] at times, but phonologically, it is /z/ for the
overwhelming majority of speakers; otherwise, there are a lot of
lexicographers that should be out of a job!

> How would that old Marx Brothers joke about "there ain't no sanity
> clause" have worked without it?

Likewise the Tim Allen movie franchise:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Santa_Clause>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Santa_Clause_2>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Santa_Clause_3:_The_Escape_Clause>

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

There is no rudeness or disrespect intended.

Considering another name - the correct pronunciation of the first two
"o"s in the name of the Mayor of London: Boris Johnson, is the BrE
cot-vowel /A./ (CINC). Brits don't see any rudeness or disrespect if
Americans mispronounce it as /A/.

>What's the excuse in "Java"?

Excuse for what?

[Nathan Sanders]

On 2014-02-23 19:09:44 +0000, Nathan Sanders said:

> There is of course the issue of the gradient phonetic devoicing that
> all obstruents are naturally prone to in English before pauses and
> voiceless sounds, so the final sound of "Claus" may often phonetically
> be something like [s] at times, but phonologically, it is /z/ for the
> overwhelming majority of speakers; otherwise, there are a lot of
> lexicographers that should be out of a job!

Here's more about this issue. In the following sound files from M-W,
"Santa Claus", "pause", and "sauce" all end in phonetically voiceless
fricatives (easily verified in any competent phonetics analysis
program, like Praat):

<http://media.merriam-webster.com/soundc11/p/santac01.wav>
<http://media.merriam-webster.com/soundc11/p/pause001.wav>
<http://media.merriam-webster.com/soundc11/p/sauce001.wav>

But despite the phonetic-level devoicing, the phonological voicing
distinction between /z/ and /s/ survives in other ways the phonetics.
Most notably, they differ in the ratio of the duration of the preceding
vowel to the duration of the fricative itself:

pause /z/ V:z ratio = 0.349/0.203 = 1.72
sauce /s/ V:s ratio = 0.210/0.267 = 0.79

This is a well-known effect in English: final voiced obstruents
(plosives, fricatives, and affricates) tend to lengthen the duration of
a preceding vowel (and voiced obstruents in general tend to have
shorter durations than their voiceless counterparts). This is true
even when the phonologically voiced obstruent is phonetically
voiceless, as in M-W's pronunciation of "pause" (this is, by the way,
how we can tell final voiced and voiceless obstruents apart in
whispered speech).

And what about "Santa Claus"?

The vowel duration is 0.288 seconds, and the fricative duration is
0.176, which gives us a ratio of 1.63. This is more than twice as
large as the ratio 0.79 for /s/, and only a bit lower (~5%) than the
ratio 1.72 for /z/, well within expected variance.

So, there you have it! "Santa Clause" patterns more like "pause" (with
/z/) than like "sauce" (with /s/).

As nearly everyone here already knew.

[Nathan Sanders]

On 2014-02-23 20:32:07 +0000, Nathan Sanders said:

> So, there you have it! "Santa Clause"

Ha, oops! "Santa Claus", of course.

> patterns more like "pause" (with /z/) than like "sauce" (with /s/).

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 10:51:43 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 2/23/14 7:33 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> > [About the Pisleur Method]

> > There are patterns that are obvious in writing that you would
> > miss in spoken language. And I want to be able to use both
> > 'channels'. I can only guess how my writings in this group would
> > have been, had I learned only spoken English.
>
> I agree completely, at least for someone like Stan who is obviously
> comfortable reading and using grammatical terminology.

Thanks to you both for your comments.

Maybe the "you'll pronounce it like an American" warning is intended
for people who don't know any other language than English. I'm
nearly fluent in French, and have a smattering of Italian, so I know
enough to know that English vowels are not Romance vowels.

And there have been several times where some niggling point of
grammar has buzzed about in my brain because I could tell that it was
an issue, but the CDs didn't give me the general rule. Fortunately I
have access to Latin American native speakers, who can tell me things
like "yes, _la_ and _lo_ can sometimes be used as indirect objects,
and _le_ can sometimes be a direct object". The CDs use them that
way occasionally, but don't explain the rules.

I'll follow your advice and get hold of a Spanish grammar in print.



--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

[Stan Brown]

On 23 Feb 2014 12:05:49 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:
>
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:
> >I don't think most native speakers would notice the -s- pronunciation
> >in such words. I probably wouldn't, unless I was listening for it.
> >But the extra syllable would be noticed and would sound wrong.
>
> Some things a native speaker of German might have to learn:
>
> omitted vowels: »executes« -> (often) »excutes«

For "often" read "never". The _third_ e is omitted, but the second
one is an unstressed vowel called a schwa. There are three distinct
syllables.

> omitted consonants: »subtle« -> »sutl«, »yacht«,
> »climbed« -> »climed«, »pseudo« -> »sudo«

Presumably if one learns "climb", "climbed" is not too difficult?

> weakening: many different vowel graphems, such as »i«,
> »u«, or »o« can share the same pronunciation when they
> become a schwa: ultimate -> /@lt@mIt/

No, the first vowel is never a schwa. It is the same vowel as in
"sun" or "pup".

> »i« sometimes is not /AI/ as in »life«, but »ee«: »tier«
> (not like »tire«), »via« (not like »why-ah«), »italics«
> starts with /AI/, but »iteration« with /I/, »directory«
> (not as in »dire«)

I don't think it does anyone a service to categorize those as
exceptions. Rather, "i" has three pronunciations (possibly more), as
in "machine", "bite", and "bit".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, February 23, 2014 1:42:22 PM UTC-5, Guy Barry wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
> news:117f62cd-29be-4be0...@googlegroups.com...
> >On Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:00:40 AM UTC-5, Guy Barry wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
> >> news:308a0429-df09-45c5...@googlegroups.com...

> >> >That would be the "Barack" problem. BrE apparently doesn't have
> >> >an [A] vowel at all
> >> Of course it does - the one that I use in "father". The "Barack" problem
> >> seems to be specific to that name.
> >And, we now learn, the name "Java."
>
> No, I pronounce "Java" as /'dZA:v@/. So do other BrE speakers as far as
> I'm aware.

Not the one(s) described in the passage you excised.

> >Where BrE doesn't even have the excuse that it's a closed syllable so
> >it's absolutely impossible for a "long" vowel to occur.
>
> >Why did you delete the antecedent of "That"?
>
> I can't remember. Whatever it was, it wasn't relevant to the point I was
> making.

The pronunciation of "Java" with the "cat" vowel was not relevant to
the pronunciation of "Barack" with the "cat" vowel????

[Peter T. Daniels]

It works in Chico Marx's stage-Italian dialect of 1929, of course.

You don't even _have_ "Santa Claus" Over There. You have "Father Christmas."

[Peter T. Daniels]

Good. We don't. "Boris" has the CAUGHT vowel and "Johnson" has the COT
vowel. Though we do wonder how a Russkie became Mayor of London.

> >What's the excuse in "Java"?
>
> Excuse for what?

Using [&] for [a], as stated by a BrE speaker earlier in the thread,
which was immediately snipped by everyone who responded.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, February 23, 2014 1:49:58 PM UTC-5, Stefan Ram wrote:

> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
> >Guy Barry:

> >>>Final "s" is normally only /z/ as part of the morpheme "-es", or
> >>>after a voiced consonant. Otherwise it's /s/.
> >>And I should add that "is", "has" and "was" have /z/.
> >And in some people's dialect, "us".
>

> And »as« also has /z/.
>
> But then there also are words that do not end with the
> grapheme »s«, but still with /s/ or /z/, such as: »use«,
> »close«, »house«, »excuse«, or »advice«.
>
> »Use« has /z/ as a verb, but /s/ as a noun.

Every word in your list has /z/ in the verb and /s/ in the noun.

Only <advise>/<advice> has the spelling differentiation.

> So, in the end, there is no simple rule for a final
> /s/-or-/z/ consonant that will fit in 100 characters.

Of course there is. Voiced in the verb, voiceless in the noun.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, February 23, 2014 4:35:39 PM UTC-5, Stan Brown wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2014 12:05:49 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:

> > weakening: many different vowel graphems, such as »i«,
> > »u«, or »o« can share the same pronunciation when they
> > become a schwa: ultimate -> /@lt@mIt/
>
> No, the first vowel is never a schwa. It is the same vowel as in
> "sun" or "pup".

In many phonemicizations, the sun/pup vowel is considered the stressed
realization of shwa, so Stefan might be correct if he is adhering to
a particular phonemic analysis of English. That would be indicated by
his use of /phoneme slashes/ rather than [phonetic brackets] -- but
it's not legitimate without marking the stress.

Though any one of the six vowel letters can in fact be realized with
a shwa sound, depending on stress patterns.

[James Hogg]

He was always Santa Claus in my home Over Here.

--
James

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Stefan Ram skrev:

> grapheme »s«, but still with /s/ or /z/, such as: »use«,
> »close«, »house«, »excuse«, or »advice«.

"Advice"? I doubt that. "Advise" is another matter.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Guy Barry skrev:

> If you switch to the American pronunciation it gives /z/ as
> well. How would that old Marx Brothers joke about "there
> ain't no sanity clause" have worked without it?

Easily. They parallelled "viaduct" with "why a duck".

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 06:41:24 -0800 (PST), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Definitely never /AI/ in "italic." Jimmy Carter was mocked for
> using that vowel in "Iraq" and "Iran," G. W. Bush in "Eye-talian."
> Obviously it's regional, but unacceptable in educated GenAm.

Eye-talian is unacceptable in educated AmE, but Eye-talic is standard
pronunciation for the text style, according to my memory and to AHD4.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Nathan Sanders skrev:

> But despite the potential ambiguity of Bertel's <e>, I explicitly said
> "I'm assuming you're only asking about the medial consonant", so there
> was no misunderstanding on my part (unless my assumption was wrong, and
> he did mean /E/ for the first vowel, a contingency I accounted for in
> my final line).

Your answer was quite useful and perfectly clear to me.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:13:15 -0000, Guy Barry wrote:
>
> "Stan Brown" wrote in message
> news:MPG.2d73a5f46...@news.individual.net...
> >
> >On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 09:16:37 -0000, Guy Barry wrote:
> >>
> >> "Bertel Lund Hansen" wrote in message
> >> news:5309ac77$0$296$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
> >> >
> >> >R H Draney skrev:
> >> >
> >> >> How do you say "atrocious"?
> >> >
> >> >Before looking up the correct pronunciation:
> >> >
> >> > a-'trou-si-us (i = short ee)
> >> >
> >> >and that repeats the error. I'll really have to work on that
> >> >because the sh-sound does not come natural to me in such words.
> >>
> >> As well the the wrong consonant, you've got the wrong number of
> >> syllables.
> >> The "i" is not pronounced separately in such words.

> >
> >I don't think most native speakers would notice the -s- pronunciation
> >in such words. I probably wouldn't, unless I was listening for it.
> >But the extra syllable would be noticed and would sound wrong.
>

> Well I would certainly notice if someone said "a-TRO-sus" instead of
> "a-TRO-shus". If they said "a-TRO-shi-us" with four syllables it would
> sound a bit pedantic, but not entirely wrong.

In second thought, I think I agree with you more than with what I
said. I was thinking of "species", but even "specious" would sound
very wrong with -s- instead of -sh- before the last syllable.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Stefan Ram skrev:

>>My English teachers where happy if we were able to pronounce the "th"

> I remember the same about English classes in Germany.

That certainly does not describe the teaching I was subjected to,
but the th-sound is the one most different from Danish and German
sounds.

> Once, at the end of a meeting, I walked up to my English
> teacher and asked her, »What rules are there for the use of
> the comma in English?« (This topic also was completely
> ignored in the class and in the textbooks.) She looked me
> squarely into the eye and said something to the effect of,
> »You don't want to know this.«

Commas are much less important than the energy spent on them
seems to suggest.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Nathan Sanders]

Glad to help!

[Joe Fineman]

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

> obAUE: Replace A _with_ B, substitute B _for_ A. (It's a little
> different in BrE, I believe.)

According to Fowler (MEU, 1927, s.v. substitute vb, substitution), who
protested vigorously & at length against this inverted usage, the OED
stigmatized it in 1915 as "Now regarded as incorrect", but it had since
become extremely common. I do not know what its present state in
Britain is, but it is fairly tho not extremely common in the US, and it
sound vulgar to me.

There is an exception in chemical jargon: one may say "hydroxyl
substitutes [i.e., replaces] hydrogen in the hydrocarbon". The
corresponding noun for the hydroxyl is not "substitute" but
"substituent".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: Mixima should be rendered manimal. :||

[R H Draney]

Peter T. Daniels filted:

>
>On Sunday, February 23, 2014 1:49:58 PM UTC-5, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
>> >Guy Barry:
>
>> >>>Final "s" is normally only /z/ as part of the morpheme "-es", or
>> >>>after a voiced consonant. Otherwise it's /s/.
>> >>And I should add that "is", "has" and "was" have /z/.
>> >And in some people's dialect, "us".

>>=20
>> And =BBas=AB also has /z/.

So duz "does"....

>> But then there also are words that do not end with the

>> grapheme =BBs=AB, but still with /s/ or /z/, such as: =BBuse=AB,
>> =BBclose=AB, =BBhouse=AB, =BBexcuse=AB, or =BBadvice=AB.
>>=20
>> =BBUse=AB has /z/ as a verb, but /s/ as a noun.

>
>Every word in your list has /z/ in the verb and /s/ in the noun.
>
>Only <advise>/<advice> has the spelling differentiation.

And "cloze", but that's a technical term for language teachers....

And just when you think you've got this all figured out, someone reminds you of
"clothes"....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[R H Draney]

Bertel Lund Hansen filted:

"I sold him the code and two pair of plans!"...r

[R H Draney]

Guy Barry filted:

>
>"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

>news:308a0429-df09-45c5...@googlegroups.com...
>
>>That would be the "Barack" problem. BrE apparently doesn't have
>>an [A] vowel at all
>
>Of course it does - the one that I use in "father". The "Barack" problem
>seems to be specific to that name.

Tell it to the jag-you-are from knicker-rag-you-are....r

[Mark Brader]

Stefan Ram (punctuation corrected):

> But then there also are words that do not end with the

> grapheme "s", but still with /s/ or /z/, such as: "use",

> "close", "house", "excuse", or "advice".
>

> "Use" has /z/ as a verb, but /s/ as a noun.

So do the other four. In the case of "advice", the verb form is
spelled with S instead of C. On the other hand, "practice" has the
same spelling variation in British usage, but is pronounced with an
S (/s/ if you must) as both noun and verb.

> So, in the end, there is no simple rule for a final
> /s/-or-/z/ consonant that will fit in 100 characters.

Yep. We are, after all, talking about English.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "I tried to hit Bjarne Stroustrup with a snowball,
m...@vex.net | but missed." --Clive Feather

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 13:52:20 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

A "Russkie" born in New York City.

His great-grandfather's mother was apparently a slave, but not in the
USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Kemal_Bey

>> >What's the excuse in "Java"?
>>
>> Excuse for what?
>
>Using [&] for [a], as stated by a BrE speaker earlier in the thread,
>which was immediately snipped by everyone who responded.

[Robert Bannister]

On 23/02/2014 6:50 am, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Mark Brader skrev:
>
>>> That surprised me as I automatically would have used a straight
>>> s-sound as in "special".
>
>> Huh?
>
> I realize now that there are some English s-sounds that I have to
> study. The sh-sound is by no means unknown in Danish, but we do
> not automatically use it in words like "special" and "species".
>

Palatalised t and c before i is very common, especially with -ion words.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Mark Brader]

Stefan Ram (punctuation corrected):

>> "i" sometimes is not /AI/ as in "life", but "ee": "tier"
>> (not like "tire"), "via" (not like "why-ah"), "italics"
>> starts with /AI/, but "iteration" with /I/, "directory"
>> (not as in "dire")

Stan Brown:

> I don't think it does anyone a service to categorize those as
> exceptions. Rather, "i" has three pronunciations (possibly more), as
> in "machine", "bite", and "bit".

Yes. Respectively called long E, long I, and short I.

But "italics" doesn't have a long I, or at least I've never heard
it with one; it starts with a short I, the same as "Italy" and
"Italian". ("Italian" with an initial long I is sometimes heard,
but considered substandard.)

And "via" is pronounced either with a long E or a long I.
--
Mark Brader "All I can say is that the work
Toronto has been done well in every way."
m...@vex.net --William C. Van Horne, 1885-11-07

[Robert Bannister]

On 23/02/2014 8:05 pm, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:

>> I don't think most native speakers would notice the -s- pronunciation
>> in such words. I probably wouldn't, unless I was listening for it.
>> But the extra syllable would be noticed and would sound wrong.
>

> Some things a native speaker of German might have to learn:
>
> omitted vowels: »executes« -> (often) »excutes«
>

> omitted consonants: »subtle« -> »sutl«, »yacht«,
> »climbed« -> »climed«, »pseudo« -> »sudo«
>

> weakening: many different vowel graphems, such as »i«,
> »u«, or »o« can share the same pronunciation when they
> become a schwa: ultimate -> /@lt@mIt/
>

> »i« sometimes is not /AI/ as in »life«, but »ee«: »tier«

I don't know an English word "tier" so I assume you mean the suffix that
came from French like "frontier", which has a number of pronunciations,
none of which are likely to be like "tire".

> (not like »tire«),

»via« (not like »why-ah«)
No? That is how I and many other say it.

, »italics«

> starts with /AI/, but »iteration« with /I/,

The first comes from "Italy" not from "itere", so perhaps it dates from
a time when people said "Eye-taly" - there are still plenty who say
"Eye-talian".

»directory«

> (not as in »dire«)

I know lots of people who say "die-rectry" (note the swallowed up "o".

> There are some details like when to use the dark l
Isn't that mainly a feature of southern British English rather than of
the English language?

[Robert Bannister]

On 23/02/2014 11:21 pm, Mark Brader wrote:
> Guy Barry:
>>> Final "s" is normally only /z/ as part of the morpheme "-es", or
>>> after a voiced consonant. Otherwise it's /s/.
>
>> And I should add that "is", "has" and "was" have /z/.
>
> And in some people's dialect, "us".
>

Hand up.

[Robert Bannister]

On 24/02/2014 2:49 am, Stefan Ram wrote:
> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:

>> Guy Barry:
>>>> Final "s" is normally only /z/ as part of the morpheme "-es", or
>>>> after a voiced consonant. Otherwise it's /s/.
>>> And I should add that "is", "has" and "was" have /z/.
>> And in some people's dialect, "us".
>

> And »as« also has /z/.
>

> But then there also are words that do not end with the
> grapheme »s«, but still with /s/ or /z/, such as: »use«,
> »close«, »house«, »excuse«, or »advice«.
>
> »Use« has /z/ as a verb, but /s/ as a noun.
>

> So, in the end, there is no simple rule for a final
> /s/-or-/z/ consonant that will fit in 100 characters.
>

The rule you've given above works for use, close, house, excuse and advise.

[Robert Bannister]

On 24/02/2014 6:13 am, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Stefan Ram skrev:
>
>> grapheme »s«, but still with /s/ or /z/, such as: »use«,
>> »close«, »house«, »excuse«, or »advice«.
>
> "Advice"? I doubt that. "Advise" is another matter.
>

That's just the spelling. The sound rule still works.

[Robert Bannister]

On 23/02/2014 11:32 pm, Nathan Sanders wrote:

> I also came up with "Santa Claus", "his", "diabetes", "series", and
> pseudo-plurals like "always", "news", and "nowadays", etc.

I hear "diabetes" both ways: die(a)-beet-iss & die-beet-eez.

[Robert Bannister]

On 24/02/2014 2:39 am, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:20:47 AM UTC-5, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>
>> I have no idea why "Claus" has /z/. It certainly does stand out from
>> the others.
>
> You've made that strange assertion before. Perhaps somewhere there's
> a small minority that has [z] in <Claus>. A vanishingly small minority.
>

Back to front. So far, I haven't even heard an s version.

[Robert Bannister]

On 24/02/2014 2:46 am, Guy Barry wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message

> news:83f5dfc9-19fb-4ef9...@googlegroups.com...

>>
>> On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:20:47 AM UTC-5, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>>
>>> I have no idea why "Claus" has /z/. It certainly does stand out from
>>> the others.
>>
>> You've made that strange assertion before. Perhaps somewhere there's
>> a small minority that has [z] in <Claus>. A vanishingly small minority.
>

> Like me and everyone else I've ever heard who uses the name?
>
> http://www.macmillandictionary.com/pronunciation/british/Santa-Claus
>

> If you switch to the American pronunciation it gives /z/ as well.

Why do you say /z/ *as well* since the British pronunciation in that
link is both spelt and said with a /z/?

Ah, you didn't mean "in addition"; you meant "also". Sorry I
misunderstood you.