Mandarin pinyin - why's it so confusing, and how do you say this?
matthew
half-way through learning pinyin. I've gone up on the internet looking
for ways to pronounce certain things that our class hasn't gotten to,
and I've found pinyin to be confusing and almost contradictory.
I thought pinyin was a way to write mandarin in such a way that
english speakers can pronounce it... not so! Apparantly it's just for
romanizing mandarin, but I still wonder about some of the choices made
in designing it.
>In our class book, "to be" is listed as "shi4".
>In class we learned to actually pronounce it as "shuh4" (english
spelling, how it sounds to me).
>On the internet I found out that "x" (pinyin) sounds like "sh"
(english).
>In class we learned to say "e" (pinyin) as a kind of "uh" (english).
So why not write "to be" as "xe4" instead? "Shuh4" would be probably
the best. But it certainly doesn't sound like "she" (english) like its
written. And why use "x" (pinyin) at all if it merely copies "sh"
(pinyin)?
Also, I've learnt that "zh" (pinyin) sounds like "j" (english)... why
not use the "J"?!
So two things: if anybody knows a good site to learn pinyin that has
good english sound examples and audio, please tell me.
Second: With all my pinyin knowledge I can't even pronounce the name
of one of my classmates. Her given name is "Pei xing" (she's from hong
kong). So in mandarin should I pronounce it "Pay-sheeng" (english
sound) or "Pay-shuhng" (english sound)?
*sigh* If the teacher needs to say every pinyin word for me anyway,
why use it? Hopefully I'll get it cleared up in my head shortly...
Peter Dy
pinyin.
True, a romanization that approximated how Chinese sounds to us in English
might help ESPN announcers pronounce Chinese atheletes' names better, but
for anyone with even a tiny knowledge of the language, you'd have a mess on
your hands, since you wouldn't know what word is being used due to the
similar-sounding sounds.
The Chinese sounds you ask about below have no English equivalent (except
for maybe pinyin "e"), so *forget* trying to use English sounds you are
already used to making in your own language. After all, that's part of the
fun of learning another language, learning to produce those weird sounds.
Read your textbook explanations of the sounds carefully and listen to your
teacher's and the tape's pronunciations carefully. You might also want to
look at how linguists describe the sounds so you'll know where the
articulation points are in the mouth and how specifically they differ from
similar-sounding English sounds. (Jerry Norman's _Chinese_, for instance.)
Peter
"matthew" <mat...@island.net> wrote in message
news:44f0973e.0309...@posting.google.com...
Peter T. Daniels
>
> I'm in mandarin chinese 100 in college, and my class has gotten about
> half-way through learning pinyin. I've gone up on the internet looking
> for ways to pronounce certain things that our class hasn't gotten to,
> and I've found pinyin to be confusing and almost contradictory.
>
> I thought pinyin was a way to write mandarin in such a way that
> english speakers can pronounce it... not so! Apparantly it's just for
> romanizing mandarin, but I still wonder about some of the choices made
> in designing it.
Why did you think that? Remember when pinyin was devised, and what the
state of world politics was in those days. Supposedly some of the
weirdness of pinyin is due to the fact that the only nation in the world
using a roman alphabet that would talk to "Red China" was Albania, and
Albanian also uses <x> and <q> in ways that seem strange to us.
(But apparently that's not actually what happened.)
Anyway follow Peter Dy's advice and learn the pronunciations without
thinking about English -- a useful way of doing that is to imitate the
accent speakers of the language have when they speak English. That helps
get your mouth all twisted up into the foreign way of making sounds --
which for that "foreign" language isn't foreign!
PS Don't try to see pictures in the characters. They ain't there, no
matter how many cute drawings you find in baby books, and those drawings
will be no help at all when you learn more characters that have
different combinations of the same "radical" and "phonetic" parts.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
John Swindle
> half-way through learning pinyin. I've gone up on the internet looking
> for ways to pronounce certain things that our class hasn't gotten to,
> and I've found pinyin to be confusing and almost contradictory.
>
> I thought pinyin was a way to write mandarin in such a way that
> english speakers can pronounce it... not so! Apparantly it's just for
> romanizing mandarin, but I still wonder about some of the choices made
> in designing it.
>
Right, Hanyu Pinyin is not a way to write Mandarin for English
speakers. It's a way to write Mandarin phonetically, like phonetic
respellings of English. It's used by the Chinese government and
the UN and by news agencies around the world, so if you're going
to learn a phonetic way of writing Mandarin, Hanyu Pinyin is the
one to learn. And, despite your experience so far, I think you'll
find it a help as you learn the language.
You may also want to take a look at the Yale system. It _is_
based on English-language sounds for the letters--and I think it
was a big part of the basis for Hanyu Pinyin. Yale series materials
are still widely available in USA, including probably in your school
library. Looking at how that system represents the sounds versus
how Hanyu Pinyin represents them may give you more of a feel
for Pinyin. (You can't learn the sounds from a book, though; you
still have to go to class and lab and listen and repeat.)
As to choices in designing Hanyu Pinyin . . . you won't find 100%
consistency in that system or in anything related to language, but
the choices do make sense. For example, "x" and "q" represent
sounds that would otherwise have to have been written with more
than one letter each. Compare Wade-Giles "hsing ch'i" with Yale
"sying chyi" and Hanyu Pinyin "xingqi".
A great website with much on Chinese and a few links for beginners:
www.zhongwen.com
Peter Dy
"Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:3F609F...@alphalink.com.au...
> matthew wrote:
> >
> > I'm in mandarin chinese 100 in college, and my class has gotten about
> > half-way through learning pinyin.
>
> For instance "qiu" which, logically, should be
> spelt "qiou". And "hui" which should be "huei".
>
> The Giles-Wade transcription system is much, much
> better for English speakers.
I don't think pinyin is that confusing. Once one learns what distinguishes
between the different sounds in Chinese, I think pinyin is more transparent
and allows one to recognize more easily what type of sound one is dealing
with. Especially where there is the most similarity amongst sounds for
English speakers, the fact that 3 different digraphs are used for the
retroflexes <zh, ch, sh> while 3 different single letters are used for the
palatals <j, q, x>, to me makes it easier to remember that one is dealing
with a different type of sound. I find Wade-Giles confusing with its,
respectively, <ch, ch', sh> and <ch, ch', hs>. I also think it is nicer to
have aspiration set apart with a different letter, as opposed to a little
apostrophe, though that might be just a bias since I learned pinyin first.
Peter
Peter Dy
"John Swindle" <jcsw...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:keicnaTDyeC...@giganews.com...[...]
(You can't learn the sounds from a book, though; you
> still have to go to class and lab and listen and repeat.)
In my first year at college, one of my roommates was Hmong and another was
Korean. My Hmong roommate's name was Cha. Unfortunately, I kept aspirating
the "ch", so when I asked if I was saying it right, he kept correcting me:
"No, not Ch'a, Cha!" Didn't help. My Korean roommate joined in: "You're
pronouncing it all wrong, it's Cha. Cha." "Ch'a?" "No, Cha!" "Ch'a?"
"Cha! Cha!" "Ch'a?" It went on like this for the entire year.
Cha moved out the next year, which gave my tongue a needed rest, but a
friend from Hong Kong moved in. That year was spent repeating the "American
r" and "l" over and over and over again. Don't think he ever got it.
Now, if I had read in a book that I simply shouldn't aspirate the "ch" or if
my HK friend had read some of the very good descriptions here on this ng on
how to pronounce the "r", I think there would have been much fewer
headaches. I still agree that you need to listen to teachers and tapes, but
descriptions can help a lot, especially if one has no clue where the sound
is coming from.
Peter
[...]
John Swindle
"Peter Dy" <pet...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:iEQ7b.3072$HU3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Now, if I had read in a book that I simply shouldn't aspirate the "ch" or
if
> my HK friend had read some of the very good descriptions here on this ng
on
> how to pronounce the "r", I think there would have been much fewer
> headaches. I still agree that you need to listen to teachers and tapes,
but
> descriptions can help a lot, especially if one has no clue where the sound
> is coming from.
>
>
I'd be able to read a book and understand "shouldn't aspirate the 'ch'" but
not much more. Is there a good starting point (a book or website, say) for
laypersons interested in learning something about articulatory phonetics?
Peter Dy
I don't know about for laymen, but I've seen books that look pretty good at
bookstores. Hopefully someone else can help you out.
For less common languages, or for those with stranger sounds, including
Chinese, it's probably better to find a something that deals specifically
for that language. Norman's description is written for serious laypeople,
as is Thompson's account of Vietnamese. They include descriptions of how
best to try producing the sounds, so it's not really that technical. And if
there are things you are unfamiliar with, just look up those things on the
web or in a linguistics dictionary.
Thompson starts describing the Vietnamese high back unrounded vowel like
this: "In many dialects of American English, vowels of this sort do not
occur or are rare. It may be helpful in learning the sounds to practice
saying the English word 'too', prolonging the vowel while gradually
spreading the lips and keeping the tongue in the same position. [etc]".
That's not technical.
Peter
LEE Sau Dan
Jacques> As for xing is the "ch" of German "ich" plus the "ing" of
Jacques> English "sing".
No. Not the English "sing" [-IN]. It's [-iN]. The /i/ is still [i]
and is not assimulated by the [-N] into an [I]. The rule /i/ /N/ ->
[IN] isn't there in Mandarin.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Ruud Harmsen
>I'm in mandarin chinese 100 in college, and my class has gotten about
>half-way through learning pinyin. I've gone up on the internet looking
>for ways to pronounce certain things that our class hasn't gotten to,
>and I've found pinyin to be confusing and almost contradictory.
It's a very consistent and logical system.
>So why not write "to be" as "xe4" instead? "Shuh4" would be probably
>the best. But it certainly doesn't sound like "she" (english) like its
>written. And why use "x" (pinyin) at all if it merely copies "sh"
>(pinyin)?
It doesn't, x and sh are two different sounds, just like q and ch, j
and zh are different.
>Also, I've learnt that "zh" (pinyin) sounds like "j" (english)... why
>not use the "J"?!
See above. They're different.
>So two things: if anybody knows a good site to learn pinyin that has
>good english sound examples and audio, please tell me.
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/chin/pinyin1.html
Skip to the last page.
--
Ruud Harmsen http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm Update 10 september 2003
David Thomas
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>>>>>> "Jacques" == Jacques Guy <jg...@alphalink.com.au> writes:
>
> Jacques> As for xing is the "ch" of German "ich" plus the "ing" of
> Jacques> English "sing".
>
>No. Not the English "sing" [-IN]. It's [-iN]. The /i/ is still [i]
>and is not assimulated by the [-N] into an [I]. The rule /i/ + /N/ ->
>[IN] isn't there in Mandarin.
I don't know anyone who pronounces 'sing' with an [I] (capital 'eye') of any
sort. In any dialect of which I'm aware, it's always a [i]. [IN] sounds
*very* weird to me. So, I think you're just being argumentative.
- Vae
Peter T. Daniels
J. C. Catford, *Practical Introduction to Phonetics* (recent second
edition). It has excellent instructions for making just about every
speech-sound in any language.
Peter T. Daniels
You're screwy.
Or you haven't even learned the most basic phonetic symbols???
[i] is in <seek>
[I] is in <sick>
[n] is in <sin>
[N] is in <sing>
and there is no [iN] *<seeng> in English.
LEE Sau Dan
>> No. Not the English "sing" [-IN]. It's [-iN]. The /i/ is
>> still [i] and is not assimulated by the [-N] into an [I]. The
>> rule /i/ /N/ -> [IN] isn't there in Mandarin.
David> I don't know anyone who pronounces 'sing' with an [I]
David> (capital 'eye') of any sort. In any dialect of which I'm
David> aware, it's always a [i]. [IN] sounds *very* weird to me.
David> So, I think you're just being argumentative.
Funny. I've never heard anyone pronouncing English "sing" with an [i]
(instead of [I]), except those with a Mandarin accent (of English).
Try pronouncing English "seen" and "sing". Are you using the same
vowel sound?
LEE Sau Dan
Peter> and there is no [iN] *<seeng> in English.
Except those who have a typical Mandarin accent of English. :)
the guy with the eye
"David Thomas" <vael...@aol.comUspamo> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20030911041339...@mb-m07.aol.com...
I don't think he is, because all dictionaries I know are on his side.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > You're screwy.
>
> > Or you haven't even learned the most basic phonetic symbols???
>
> > [i] is in <seek>
>
Length is irrelevant in this example. /iy/ and /i/ respectively, but
David is already confused enough about phonemics.
David Thomas
>
>> You're screwy.
>
>> Or you haven't even learned the most basic phonetic symbols???
>
>> [i] is in <seek>
>
>[i:] as in <seek>, /i/ perhaps, as distinct from /I/, but NOT [i]
I'm not really bothering about length; my chief concern here is the difference
between variants on [i] and on [I], where I've never heard the latter in any
words with a following [N]. 'Ink,' for me, is [iN(k^h)]--where, when there is
a k on the end, it's aspirated a bit.
- Vae
David Thomas
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> I don't know anyone who pronounces 'sing' with an [I] (capital 'eye') of
>any
>> sort. In any dialect of which I'm aware, it's always a [i]. [IN] sounds
>> *very* weird to me. So, I think you're just being argumentative.
>
>You're screwy.
>
>Or you haven't even learned the most basic phonetic symbols???
>
>[i] is in <seek>
>[I] is in <sick>
>
>[n] is in <sin>
>[N] is in <sing>
>
>and there is no [iN] *<seeng> in English.
Seriously, I know the symbols; noone I know says, in effect, [IN] in 'sing.'
In fact, anywhere an [N] <ng> occurs where there's also an i--ring, ding,
thing, fling--the vowel is always [i], never [I]. I've never heard anyone make
the first two sounds of 'sin' and 'sing' the same, ever.
- Vae
David Thomas
>
>> I don't know anyone who pronounces 'sing' with an [I] (capital 'eye') of
>any
>> sort. In any dialect of which I'm aware, it's always a [i]. [IN] sounds
>> *very* weird to me. So, I think you're just being argumentative.
>
>i of French signe than it is to the i of English sing. But he's just
>nit-picking. In plainer English: being an arsehole.
After having read about PinYin, and based on the sound files here
(http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/chin/pinyin1.html), the vowel I invariably
hear in 'sing' is the same as Mandarin 'xing.' But, given as the speaker in
the sound files pronounces the x as a [S], rather than the [x] that I earlier
read it should be, I'm not sure how much I should trust the pronunciation
there...
- Vae
David Thomas
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter T Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> Peter> and there is no [iN] *<seeng> in English.
>
>Except those who have a typical Mandarin accent of English. :)
Are you trying to tell me I have a Mandarin accent?
That would indeed be strange, given as I've never been to China, nor ever
attempted the language.
- Vae
David Thomas
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>>>>>> "David" == David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes:
>
> >> No. Not the English "sing" [-IN]. It's [-iN]. The /i/ is
> >> still [i] and is not assimulated by the [-N] into an [I]. The
> >> rule /i/ + /N/ -> [IN] isn't there in Mandarin.
>
> David> I don't know anyone who pronounces 'sing' with an [I]
> David> (capital 'eye') of any sort. In any dialect of which I'm
> David> aware, it's always a [i]. [IN] sounds *very* weird to me.
> David> So, I think you're just being argumentative.
>
>Funny. I've never heard anyone pronouncing English "sing" with an [i]
>(instead of [I]), except those with a Mandarin accent (of English).
>
>Try pronouncing English "seen" and "sing". Are you using the same
>vowel sound?
Yes, the first two sounds of 'seen' and 'sing' are [si], sounding quite like
Italian/French 'si,' though the sound of the English words is, of course,
longer in duration.
- Vae
David Thomas
<theguywi...@yahoo.com> writes:
That's very strange to me, to say the least. I feel like I've somehow wondered
into an alternate dimension. Now I'm going to have to have everyone I know
repeat 'sing' for me fifteen million times, to make sure I've been hearing it
right...
- Vae
David Thomas
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
Hah...
- Vae
Jim Heckman
On 11-Sep-2003, "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
in message <3F605D...@worldnet.att.net>:
[...]
> [i] is in <seek>
> [I] is in <sick>
>
> [n] is in <sin>
> [N] is in <sing>
>
> and there is no [iN] *<seeng> in English.
In my idiolect, as apparently in David's, the vowel in <sing> is
indeed closer to [i] than to [I], and what's more I perceive it
to be phonemically /iy/ not /i/ (in Smith-Trager notation). From
discussions that have taken place in alt.usage.english, this is
apparently the case for a not insignificant number of American
accents.
--
Jim Heckman
David Thomas
>
>> Jacques Guy wrote:
>
>> > [i:] as in <seek>, /i/ perhaps, as distinct from /I/, but NOT [i]
>>
>> Length is irrelevant in this example. /iy/ and /i/ respectively, but
>> David is already confused enough about phonemics.
>
>You talka da Engleesh widda French accent in ya necka da
>woods? And what the bloody hell do /iy/ and /i/ mean?
>/iy/ as in "fille", /i/ as in "bitte"?
Yep, I think.
/iy/ and /i/ correspond, as best I've divined, roughly to [i] and [I].
- Vae
David Thomas
<wnzrfe...@lnubb.pbz.invalid> writes:
I was seriously starting to wonder if I either:
1) Am delusional,
2) Don't know IPA (I checked myself against IPA Help, though),
3) Need my ears checked.
My /iy/ is certainly more close and front than my parents', but even theirs is
a definite /iy/, not /i/, though their /i/ is not quite as close-mid as mine.
They also have /siy/ in 'sing'--not sure how [N] translates into Smith-Trager.
- Vae
Dennis
> I thought pinyin was a way to write mandarin in such a way that english
speakers can pronounce it
It is. However, its purpose was not for English speakers to learn Chinese.
> I still wonder about some of the choices made in designing it.
Do you also wonder about the choices made in designing the Yale and Wade
Giles systems? Of the three, I like PinYin best.
> In class we learned to actually pronounce it as "shuh4" (english spelling,
how it sounds to me).
This seems to be a clear error on your part. Go back to the drawing board.
> On the internet I found out that "x" (pinyin) sounds like "sh" (english).
By "like," you do not mean "identical." shu and xu are not at all identical.
>In class we learned to say "e" (pinyin) as a kind of "uh" (english).
Is your "uh" similar to the "oo" in "book?"
> So why not write "to be" as "xe4" instead? "Shuh4" would be probably the
best.
Neither of these is at all similar to the pronounciation in the national
language. What language are you learning?
> And why use "x" (pinyin) at all if it merely copies "sh" (pinyin)?
You are obviously a beginner. Perhaps you should hold your questions, and
they will be answered in time, as you get more experience. The fact is that
there are many sounds that are not present in English. They had to make a
decision as to how to proceed. As well, the Chinese government was under no
obligation to keep English speakers foremost in mind where creating their
PinYin.
> With all my pinyin knowledge I can't even pronounce the name of one of my
classmates. Her given name is "Pei xing" (she's from hong kong). So in
mandarin should I pronounce it "Pay-sheeng" (english sound) or "Pay-shuhng"
(english sound)?
Although she is from Hong Kong, her name is spelled as in the national
language, and not as in Cantonese, the prevalent language of Hong Kong.
> "Pay-sheeng" (english sound)
Reasonably close.
> or "Pay-shuhng" (english sound)?
Absolutely not.
Dennis
"matthew" <mat...@island.net> wrote in message
news:44f0973e.0309...@posting.google.com...
> I'm in mandarin chinese 100 in college, and my class has gotten about
> half-way through learning pinyin. I've gone up on the internet looking
> for ways to pronounce certain things that our class hasn't gotten to,
> and I've found pinyin to be confusing and almost contradictory.
>
> I thought pinyin was a way to write mandarin in such a way that
> english speakers can pronounce it... not so! Apparantly it's just for
> romanizing mandarin, but I still wonder about some of the choices made
> in designing it.
>
> >In our class book, "to be" is listed as "shi4".
> >In class we learned to actually pronounce it as "shuh4" (english
> spelling, how it sounds to me).
> >On the internet I found out that "x" (pinyin) sounds like "sh"
> (english).
> >In class we learned to say "e" (pinyin) as a kind of "uh" (english).
>
> So why not write "to be" as "xe4" instead? "Shuh4" would be probably
> the best. But it certainly doesn't sound like "she" (english) like its
> written. And why use "x" (pinyin) at all if it merely copies "sh"
> (pinyin)?
>
> Also, I've learnt that "zh" (pinyin) sounds like "j" (english)... why
> not use the "J"?!
>
> So two things: if anybody knows a good site to learn pinyin that has
> good english sound examples and audio, please tell me.
>
> Second: With all my pinyin knowledge I can't even pronounce the name
> of one of my classmates. Her given name is "Pei xing" (she's from hong
> kong). So in mandarin should I pronounce it "Pay-sheeng" (english
> sound) or "Pay-shuhng" (english sound)?
>
> *sigh* If the teacher needs to say every pinyin word for me anyway,
> why use it? Hopefully I'll get it cleared up in my head shortly...
Peter Dy
"David Thomas" <vael...@aol.comUspamo> wrote in message
news:20030911181600...@mb-m12.aol.com...
Sounds to me like he is pronouncing it correctly, not as [S].
Accoustically, it does sound similar to [S].
No one said it is [x], as far as I know. Pinyin <x> is "curly-tail c",
which doesn't have a Kirschenbaum symbol. German "ich" ends in a [C].
Peter
David Thomas
<pet...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>> After having read about PinYin, and based on the sound files here
>> (http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/chin/pinyin1.html), the vowel I
>invariably
>> hear in 'sing' is the same as Mandarin 'xing.' But, given as the speaker
>in
>> the sound files pronounces the x as a [S], rather than the [x] that I
>earlier
>> read it should be, I'm not sure how much I should trust the pronunciation
>> there...
>
>
>Sounds to me like he is pronouncing it correctly, not as [S].
>Accoustically, it does sound similar to [S].
>
>No one said it is [x], as far as I know. Pinyin <x> is "curly-tail c",
>which doesn't have a Kirschenbaum symbol. German "ich" ends in a [C].
Ah, I'm sorry. I suppose I misunderstood an earlier description of it.
Checking the IPA charts, though, and emulating as best I can, I can now tell
the difference, and am starting to hear it. [S] sounds a whole lot more
'frictive' to me, if that makes any sense, and the [C] sounds more 'hissy.'
Also, You say 'curly-tail c' doesn't have a Kirshenbaum symbol, but, in the PDF
spec, it lists [C] for a c with cedilla--the unvoiced palatal fricative, so are
you referring to another 'curly-tail c,' or am I misunderstanding you?
Also, the two German sounds always described as 'ach-laut' and 'ich-laut'--what
are they?
- Vae
David Thomas
>
>> >> Jacques Guy wrote:
>
>> >So what did you want me to write? "[i] as in <seek>"?
>> >You talka da Engleesh widda French accent in ya necka da
>> >woods? And what the bloody hell do /iy/ and /i/ mean?
>> >/iy/ as in "fille", /i/ as in "bitte"?
>
>> Yep, I think.
>
>> /iy/ and /i/ correspond, as best I've divined, roughly to [i] and [I].
>
>a German one!) and 'ai' as in 'ouais' (that's how French
>renders the [I] of "oui" as often pronounced sloppily--speak
>of subphonemic spelling!)
Wait a second... French 'bitte?' I was indeed referencing the German one.
French 'bitte,' 'oui,' and 'ouais' are, for me, [bit], [wi], and [wE].
So, now you've confused me again!
>Anyway, the Chinese i of xing is indeed your i of sing.
I do think it is.
- Vae
Peter Dy
"David Thomas" <vael...@aol.comUspamo> wrote in message
> In article <7H88b.3447$v63....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>, "Peter Dy"
> <pet...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> >> After having read about PinYin, and based on the sound files here
> >> (http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/chin/pinyin1.html), the vowel I
> >invariably
> >> hear in 'sing' is the same as Mandarin 'xing.' But, given as the
speaker
> >in
> >> the sound files pronounces the x as a [S], rather than the [x] that I
> >earlier
> >> read it should be, I'm not sure how much I should trust the
pronunciation
> >> there...
> >
> >
> >Sounds to me like he is pronouncing it correctly, not as [S].
> >Accoustically, it does sound similar to [S].
> >
> >No one said it is [x], as far as I know. Pinyin <x> is "curly-tail c",
> >which doesn't have a Kirschenbaum symbol. German "ich" ends in a [C].
>
> Ah, I'm sorry. I suppose I misunderstood an earlier description of it.
>
> Checking the IPA charts, though, and emulating as best I can, I can now
tell
> the difference, and am starting to hear it. [S] sounds a whole lot more
> 'frictive' to me, if that makes any sense, and the [C] sounds more
'hissy.'
Yes.
> Also, You say 'curly-tail c' doesn't have a Kirshenbaum symbol, but, in
the PDF
> spec, it lists [C] for a c with cedilla--the unvoiced palatal fricative,
so are
> you referring to another 'curly-tail c,' or am I misunderstanding you?
Jacques was giving an approximate description of pinyin <x>. It's not the
same as German "ich", ie. it is not [C]. On the webpage below, curly-tail c
(voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative) is listed right under c cedilla
(voiceless palatal fricative).
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~dpb/ascii-ipa.html
> Also, the two German sounds always described as 'ach-laut' and
'ich-laut'--what
> are they?
ach-laut is [X]
ich-laut is [C]
But there is [x] in German too, in words like <Buch>.
Peter
LEE Sau Dan
Peter> and there is no [iN] *<seeng> in English.
>> Except those who have a typical Mandarin accent of English.
>> :)
David> Are you trying to tell me I have a Mandarin accent?
No. You're more likely to be mixing up the IPA symbols [i] and [I].
Tell us what vowel you use when pronouncing the following words
(ignoring length for the moment):
"seem", "seen", "sing"
"zip", "sit", "sick"
David> That would indeed be strange, given as I've never been to
David> China, nor ever attempted the language.
Logical error: That's not the ONLY way to acquire such a feature. And
this is not the only feature of a Mandarin accent of English.
LEE Sau Dan
David> I'm not really bothering about length; my chief concern
David> here is the difference between variants on [i] and on [I],
David> where I've never heard the latter in any words with a
David> following [N]. 'Ink,' for me, is [iN(k^h)]--where, when
David> there is a k on the end, it's aspirated a bit.
How do you pronounce: "sink" and "sick"?
Aren't they the same vowel?
Now, what about: "sin" and "sit"?
The same vowel as the above?
Or are you actually mixing up the phonetic values of [i] and [I]?
LEE Sau Dan
Jacques> What he means is that he was taught to pronounce "e" as a
Jacques> back unrounded vowel, precisely the "o" in the Korean
Jacques> pronunciation of "Pyongyang". But pinyin "e" has another
Jacques> pronunciation: the "e" of British English "get". You
Jacques> cannot substitute one for the other though, you just have
Jacques> to learn in which type of syllable it pronounced as "o"
Jacques> in "Pyongyang" and in which it is pronounced as "e" in
Jacques> "get". To add to the confusion, the sound of "e" in "get"
Jacques> is spelt "a" in "yan" and in syllables of the general
Jacques> form "<consonant>ian" such as tian, dian3, pian4, and so
Jacques> on. Hardly an optimal system, and far from phonemic or
Jacques> phonetic.
That's why in China, they like to teach the finals as a whole unit.
This is partly due to the traditional phonological tables, and partly
due to what you mentioned above.
For "ian" (or "yan"), well... the "a" used to be [a] 1 century ago.
But it has changed completely to [E] already. The next is the "a" is
"uan". It is undergoing the transition from [a] to [E] in many
regional variants of Mandarin.
Jacques> beginners. Eventually, you learn to read and write
Jacques> Chinese in its own writing system: characters. Or remain
Jacques> illiterate. So, really, the only thing that should be
Jacques> taken into account when choosing a representation for
Jacques> Chinese pronunciation is the learners' convenience.
Maybe, the bopomofo alphabet would be less confusing, because the
learner is less tempted to relate it to their own writing system. So,
they're less likely to mix up the Mandarin sounds with similar English
sounds. With a Romanization system, you have to retrain your brain
cells a new spelling->pronunciation mapping anyway. Learning with
bopomofo should be no more difficult. Just a new shape->pronunciation
mapping.
LEE Sau Dan
Peter> ach-laut is [X] ich-laut is [C]
Peter> But there is [x] in German too, in words like <Buch>.
I don't understand the difference between [x] and [X]. What is it?
In which German words are [X] found? (If you have minimal pairs,
that'd be nice.)
LEE Sau Dan
David> Seriously, I know the symbols; noone I know says, in
David> effect, [IN] in 'sing.'
David> In fact, anywhere an [N] <ng> occurs where there's also an
David> i--ring, ding, thing, fling--the vowel is always [i], never
David> [I].
So, you've never heard the TV news on CNN? Words like "think" should
be frequent enough to spot.
David> I've never heard anyone make the first two sounds of 'sin'
David> and 'sing' the same, ever.
What do you think are the vowels in these two words?
LEE Sau Dan
David> Checking the IPA charts, though, and emulating as best I
David> can, I can now tell the difference, and am starting to hear
David> it. [S] sounds a whole lot more 'frictive' to me, if that
David> makes any sense, and the [C] sounds more 'hissy.'
And this latter sounds like the "h" in "huge" (in comparison to
"hall"). The extra friction or hissing that you do in pronouncing
"huge" is the right direction.
But remember, neither "sh" nor "x" in Pinyin go with a rounded lips.
Many English speakers are tempted to round their lips when they see
"sh". While that's tolerable, it's not correct, and creates a typical
"Western" accent. Maybe, that's why people like to say <xing> sounds
like "sing".
David> Also, You say 'curly-tail c' doesn't have a Kirshenbaum
David> symbol, but, in the PDF spec, it lists [C] for a c with
David> cedilla--the unvoiced palatal fricative,
That's it. It's like an [s], except that it is aspirated in the
palatal position.
David> so are you referring to another 'curly-tail c,' or am I
David> misunderstanding you?
I don't think so.
David> Also, the two German sounds always described as 'ach-laut'
David> and 'ich-laut'--what are they?
Forget about it if you don't know what they mean, unless you're going
to learn German. Concentrate on Mandarin and listen carefully.
Ach-laut means [x], which is spelt with "h" in Pinyin. Ich-laut is
that [C-cedilla] sound. It is close to the "x" in Pinyin.
LEE Sau Dan
>> Try pronouncing English "seen" and "sing". Are you using the
>> same vowel sound?
David> Yes, the first two sounds of 'seen' and 'sing' are [si],
David> sounding quite like Italian/French 'si,' though the sound
David> of the English words is, of course, longer in duration.
Even if that's a regional accent, there is still CNN, BBC, etc. to
which we can refer. The news broadcasters do pronounce "seen" as
[si:n] and "sing" as [sIN]. I know how "si" is pronounced in
French/Italian/Spanish. And the vowel there is [i], not [I]. English
"sign" has [I], which is different from [i].
More words to try:
theme, thin, think
keep, kit, kick
beep, beat, blick
More funny: seek, sick
peak, pick
LEE Sau Dan
>> Anyway, the Chinese i of xing is indeed your i of sing.
David> I do think it is.
The <i> in Mandarin <xing> is the same [i] as in
French/Italian/Spanish "si".
Peter Dy
"LEE Sau Dan" <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
news:m3pti6u...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de...
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Dy <pet...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> Peter> ach-laut is [X] ich-laut is [C]
> Peter> But there is [x] in German too, in words like <Buch>.
>
> I don't understand the difference between [x] and [X]. What is it?
> In which German words are [X] found? (If you have minimal pairs,
> that'd be nice.)
Well, I'm sure you know that [X] is uvular and [x] is velar.
Anyway, you have [X] after low back vowels, in words like in <ach, Dach,
Bach, doch, roch>.
You have [x] after high/mid back vowels, in words like <Buch, Tuch, hoch>.
They speak funny down south where you are, so I'm not sure if they do it
like that there. But next time you hear a loud, emphatic <doch!>, you
should be able to note how that "ch" is further down in the throat then the
"ch" you would use for a word like <Buch>.
There's been a lot of discussion about the phonemic status of these sounds
on this newsgroup and elsewhere. First, [X] and [x] are allophones, so
there are no minimal pairs. And it seems like [C] is also an allophone
here, all three of them allophones of /x/.
Peter
Peter Dy
> >>>>> "David" == David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes:
[...]
> David> so are you referring to another 'curly-tail c,' or am I
> David> misunderstanding you?
>
> I don't think so.
Yeah, I think he was: There is "curly-tail c" and "c cedilla". I think he
thought I was using curly-tail c to describe squiggle on the c cedilla.
They are two different squiggles.
Peter
[...]
Peter Dy
"Peter Dy" <pet...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Yze8b.1602$%z3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "LEE Sau Dan" <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote in message
> news:m3pti6u...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de...
> > >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Dy <pet...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >
> > Peter> ach-laut is [X] ich-laut is [C]
> > Peter> But there is [x] in German too, in words like <Buch>.
> >
> > I don't understand the difference between [x] and [X]. What is it?
> > In which German words are [X] found? (If you have minimal pairs,
> > that'd be nice.)
By the way, Duden _Grammatik_ (5th edition) and Wahrig (1986 edition), both
talk about the "ach-laut" as [x]. Not sure if Duden's
_Aussprachewörterbuch_ includes both [X] and [x].
And Duden's description of [X] is bizarre, but I don't have time at the
moment to figure out what they are doing.
Peter
John Swindle
>
> "John Swindle" <jcsw...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:j4udnfEQM-3...@giganews.com...> > news:iEQ7b.3072$HU3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> . . .
>
> Thompson starts describing the Vietnamese high back unrounded vowel like
> this: "In many dialects of American English, vowels of this sort do not
> occur or are rare. It may be helpful in learning the sounds to practice
> saying the English word 'too', prolonging the vowel while gradually
> spreading the lips and keeping the tongue in the same position. [etc]".
> That's not technical.
>
Agreed. Thanks. I even recognize the Vietnamese vowel you
mean from that description, and Vietnamese vowels should be
a pretty good test for a descriptive system.
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>I'm not really bothering about length; my chief concern here is the difference
>between variants on [i] and on [I], where I've never heard the latter in any
>words with a following [N]. 'Ink,' for me, is [iN(k^h)]--where, when there is
>a k on the end, it's aspirated a bit.
Then you don't hear it right. The English word 'ink' is always [INk],
never [iNk], and the k is never aspirated in that situation.
--
Ruud Harmsen http://rudhar.com/index/whatsnew.htm Update 10 september 2003
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>>and there is no [iN] *<seeng> in English.
>
>Seriously, I know the symbols; noone I know says, in effect, [IN] in 'sing.'
Then you really hear something that isn't there. That's the only
explanation.
>In fact, anywhere an [N] <ng> occurs where there's also an i--ring, ding,
>thing, fling--the vowel is always [i], never [I]. I've never heard anyone make
>the first two sounds of 'sin' and 'sing' the same, ever.
Always.
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>After having read about PinYin, and based on the sound files here
>(http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/chin/pinyin1.html), the vowel I invariably
>hear in 'sing' is the same as Mandarin 'xing.' But, given as the speaker in
>the sound files pronounces the x as a [S], rather than the [x] that I earlier
>read it should be, [...]
No, not phonetic [x], but a German ich-laut. Very diffferent sound.
Listen here for examples: http://rudhar.com/fonetics/cxch.htm
John Swindle
> John Swindle wrote:
> > . . .
> > . . . Is there a good starting point (a book or website, say) for
> > laypersons interested in learning something about articulatory
> > phonetics?
>
> J. C. Catford, *Practical Introduction to Phonetics* (recent second
> edition). It has excellent instructions for making just about every
> speech-sound in any language.
> . . .
>
And is available from big, online booksellers at a very reasonable
price. Thanks for suggesting it.
Peter Dy
"Ruud Harmsen" <ar-ai...@rudhar.com> wrote in message
news:cs03mvgkerc4hm52s...@4ax.com...
> 11 Sep 2003 22:16:00 GMT: vael...@aol.comUspamo (David Thomas): in
> sci.lang:
>
> >After having read about PinYin, and based on the sound files here
> >(http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/chin/pinyin1.html), the vowel I
invariably
> >hear in 'sing' is the same as Mandarin 'xing.' But, given as the speaker
in
> >the sound files pronounces the x as a [S], rather than the [x] that I
earlier
> >read it should be, [...]
>
> No, not phonetic [x], but a German ich-laut. Very diffferent sound.
No, it is not an ich-laut. I don't know why Jacques said that. Well, he is
also the one who said he learned a language in something like 2 weeks, so go
figure.
It's further forward in the mouth than the German ich-laut.
Peter
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>In article <7H88b.3447$v63....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>, "Peter Dy"
Yes, Kirshenbaum [C] (IPA ç) is different from curly tail c. Both are
listed here:
http://www.cs.brown.edu/~dpb/ascii-ipa.html
In http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/fullchart.html, ç is in the basic
consonant table (palatal column), but curly tail c and z are listed
separately, lower in the document.
>Also, the two German sounds always described as 'ach-laut' and 'ich-laut'--what
>are they?
[x] and [C], respectively. Or [x] may sometimes also be [X], or
something in between.
Ruud Harmsen
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>: in sci.lang:
>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Dy <pet...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> Peter> ach-laut is [X] ich-laut is [C]
> Peter> But there is [x] in German too, in words like <Buch>.
>
>I don't understand the difference between [x] and [X]. What is it?
>In which German words are [X] found? (If you have minimal pairs,
>that'd be nice.)
There aren't. As far as I know, this distinction is irrelevant in
German, the actual sound could be either, depending on speaker.
A clearer distinction is found in Dutch, Northerners (north of the big
rivers) it is [X], sound of them, and so also in Belgium, it is [x].
Very fine distinction, but it is easy to hear for us Ducth speakers,
because it is one of the most conspicuous characteristics of such
accents. As said, contrasting samples in the lower parts of:
http://rudhar.com/fonetics/cxch.htm
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>Well, I'm sure you know that [X] is uvular and [x] is velar.
>
>Anyway, you have [X] after low back vowels, in words like in <ach, Dach,
>Bach, doch, roch>.
>
>You have [x] after high/mid back vowels, in words like <Buch, Tuch, hoch>.
First time I see this mentioned, but I do think you're right. If I
reverse them, the result is a funny accent.
>There's been a lot of discussion about the phonemic status of these sounds
>on this newsgroup and elsewhere. First, [X] and [x] are allophones, so
>there are no minimal pairs. And it seems like [C] is also an allophone
>here, all three of them allophones of /x/.
I think so too.
Ruud Harmsen
<wnzrfe...@lnubb.pbz.invalid>: in sci.lang:
>In my idiolect, as apparently in David's, the vowel in <sing> is
>indeed closer to [i] than to [I], and what's more I perceive it
>to be phonemically /iy/ not /i/ (in Smith-Trager notation).
By y, do you mean the sound as in yes? IPA j?
>From
>discussions that have taken place in alt.usage.english, this is
>apparently the case for a not insignificant number of American
>accents.
More like, or also, Australian and NZ?
Because the ee in ee is a full diphthong there, a shifts towards e, e
to i, i (as in sing) must develop towards "seeng". Necessary to keep
the vowels apart.
David Thomas
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>>>>>> "David" == David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes:
>
>
> >> Anyway, the Chinese i of xing is indeed your i of sing.
>
> David> I do think it is.
>
>The in Mandarin <xing> is the same [i] as in
>French/Italian/Spanish "si".
One reason I never use the orthographic angle brackets is that some readers
misinterpret it as HTML. Every part of your post in my reader after you wrote
'i' (substituting the quotes in for the brackets) was italicized... heh heh.
- Vae
David Thomas
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Dy <pet...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> Peter> ach-laut is [X] ich-laut is [C]
> Peter> But there is [x] in German too, in words like <Buch>.
>
>I don't understand the difference between [x] and [X]. What is it?
>In which German words are [X] found? (If you have minimal pairs,
>that'd be nice.)
It's not enough to say one's velar [x] and the other uvular [X]?
- Vae
David Thomas
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>>>>>> "David" == David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes:
>
> David> I'm not really bothering about length; my chief concern
> David> here is the difference between variants on [i] and on [I],
> David> where I've never heard the latter in any words with a
> David> following [N]. 'Ink,' for me, is [iN(k^h)]--where, when
> David> there is a k on the end, it's aspirated a bit.
>
>How do you pronounce: "sink" and "sick"?
>
>Aren't they the same vowel?
Not at all. For the former, [i], and for the latter, [I].
>Now, what about: "sin" and "sit"?
>
>The same vowel as the above?
The same as 'sick:' [I].
>Or are you actually mixing up the phonetic values of [i] and [I]?
Nope, that, not at all.
I indeed find it both strange to hear [IN] in words with /iN/, as well as
difficult to say [IN] without shifting it to [iN].
- Vae
David Thomas
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>>>>>> "David" == David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes:
>
> >> Try pronouncing English "seen" and "sing". Are you using the
> >> same vowel sound?
>
> David> Yes, the first two sounds of 'seen' and 'sing' are [si],
> David> sounding quite like Italian/French 'si,' though the sound
> David> of the English words is, of course, longer in duration.
>Even if that's a regional accent, there is still CNN, BBC, etc. to
>which we can refer. The news broadcasters do pronounce "seen" as
>[si:n] and "sing" as [sIN].
>I know how "si" is pronounced in French/Italian/Spanish. And the vowel
there is [i], not [I].
Exactly my point.
>English "sign" has [I], which is different from [i].
No, no, no... it has a diphthong! I'm guessing Smith-Trager renders it
something like /ay/. I would write it [ai], but most people around here
pronounce it [&], with no diphthong at all, much less any sound of /i/--damned
south! I commonly see this diphthong represented as [aI]. My rendering is
much closer to [ai:].
>More words to try:
>
> theme, thin, think
...roughly [Tim TIn TeNk]
> keep, kit, kick
[kip kIt kIk]
> beep, beat, blick
[bip bit blIk]--that last one is a 'bi' 'El' 'c&p@tUl ai' 'ke'
>More funny: seek, sick
> peak, pick
[sik sIk pik pIk]--the best minimal pairs you've picked so far...
You're just really off the goofometer here...
- Vae
David Thomas
<pet...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
::clip::
>> Checking the IPA charts, though, and emulating as best I can, I can nowtell
>> the difference, and am starting to hear it. [S] sounds a whole lot more
>> 'frictive' to me, if that makes any sense, and the [C] sounds more 'hissy.'
>Yes.
>> Also, You say 'curly-tail c' doesn't have a Kirshenbaum symbol, but, in the
PDF
>> spec, it lists [C] for a c with cedilla--the unvoiced palatal fricative, so
are
>> you referring to another 'curly-tail c,' or am I misunderstanding you?
>
>Jacques was giving an approximate description of pinyin <x>. It's not the
>same as German "ich", ie. it is not [C]. On the webpage below, curly-tail c
>(voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative) is listed right under c cedilla
>(voiceless palatal fricative).
>
>http://www.cs.brown.edu/~dpb/ascii-ipa.html
I just found curly-tail c in IPA Help. It's listed outside the chart, which is
why I didn't see it before. It sounds, to me, a whole lot more like [C] than
[S], and more like [C] than either [X], [x], or [s.]. Would it be reasonable
to represent this sound as [C{alv}]?
>> Also, the two German sounds always described as 'ach-laut' and
>> 'ich-laut'--what are they?
>
>ach-laut is [X]
>ich-laut is [C]
>
>But there is [x] in German too, in words like <Buch>.
That makes pronouncing German SO much easier now that I know what I'm trying to
say! Now I just have to figure out how these sounds are written... heh heh.
- Vae
David Thomas
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
> Jacques> beginners. Eventually, you learn to read and write
> Jacques> Chinese in its own writing system: characters. Or remain
> Jacques> illiterate. So, really, the only thing that should be
> Jacques> taken into account when choosing a representation for
> Jacques> Chinese pronunciation is the learners' convenience.
>
>Maybe, the bopomofo alphabet would be less confusing, because the
>learner is less tempted to relate it to their own writing system. So,
>they're less likely to mix up the Mandarin sounds with similar English
>sounds. With a Romanization system, you have to retrain your brain
>cells a new spelling->pronunciation mapping anyway. Learning with
>bopomofo should be no more difficult. Just a new shape->pronunciation
>mapping.
What I find difficult about these different Romanizations isn't the new sound
mappings, but the consistency. It'd be much easier to use if each character
didn't change so often how it's pronounced depending on environment. I know
nothing of Mandarin, though, and I'm guessing these 'irregularities' are due to
some desire for fidelity to their native system of writing.
- Vae
David Thomas
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>>>>>> "David" == David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes:
>
> David> Checking the IPA charts, though, and emulating as best I
> David> can, I can now tell the difference, and am starting to hear
> David> it. [S] sounds a whole lot more 'frictive' to me, if that
> David> makes any sense, and the [C] sounds more 'hissy.'
>
>And this latter sounds like the "h" in "huge" (in comparison to
>"hall"). The extra friction or hissing that you do in pronouncing
>"huge" is the right direction.
Actually, I don't do anything strange with 'huge,' as I hear many people do.
For me, it's just [hjudZ], and I tend to hear something very much like
[C{alv}juwdZ] from other English speakers.
>But remember, neither "sh" nor "x" in Pinyin go with a rounded lips.
>Many English speakers are tempted to round their lips when they see
>"sh". While that's tolerable, it's not correct, and creates a typical
>"Western" accent. Maybe, that's why people like to say <xing> sounds
>like "sing".
That's okay. I don't round my lips when saying any of these sounds. I'm
fairly sure that's only common when shushing someone, and even then I don't do
it.
> David> Also, You say 'curly-tail c' doesn't have a Kirshenbaum
> David> symbol, but, in the PDF spec, it lists [C] for a c with
> David> cedilla--the unvoiced palatal fricative,
>
>That's it. It's like an [s], except that it is aspirated in the
>palatal position.
According to previous postings, it's not this sound, but the alveolo-palatal
fricative, which is slightly different.
> David> so are you referring to another 'curly-tail c,' or am I
> David> misunderstanding you?
>
>I don't think so.
See previously...
> David> Also, the two German sounds always described as 'ach-laut'
> David> and 'ich-laut'--what are they?
>
>Forget about it if you don't know what they mean, unless you're going
>to learn German. Concentrate on Mandarin and listen carefully.
You're certain chauvinist about this, aren't you?
I'm trying to learn about the phonetics of several different languages, not
just Mandarin.
>Ach-laut means [x], which is spelt with "h" in Pinyin. Ich-laut is
>that [C-cedilla] sound. It is close to the "x" in Pinyin.
Well, that certainly was a workout...
I think my tongue needs a nap.
- Vae
David Thomas
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>>>>>> "David" == David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes:
>
> Peter> and there is no [iN] *<seeng> in English.
> >> Except those who have a typical Mandarin accent of English.
> >> :)
>
> David> Are you trying to tell me I have a Mandarin accent?
>
>No. You're more likely to be mixing up the IPA symbols [i] and [I].
Not at all, and I was joking.
>Tell us what vowel you use when pronouncing the following words
>(ignoring length for the moment):
>
> "seem", "seen", "sing"
> "zip", "sit", "sick"
For the top row I have /iy/, IPA [i], and for the bottom /i/, IPA [I]. It
might seem interesting that I have [I] in 'been' rather than [i], and rhyming
'been' with 'seen' sounds British to me.
> David> That would indeed be strange, given as I've never been to
> David> China, nor ever attempted the language.
>
>Logical error: That's not the ONLY way to acquire such a feature. And
>this is not the only feature of a Mandarin accent of English.
::takes tongue from cheek::
I think he took me a bit too Sauriously...
- Vae
David Thomas
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>>>>>> "David" == David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes:
>
> David> Seriously, I know the symbols; noone I know says, in
> David> effect, [IN] in 'sing.'
>
> David> In fact, anywhere an [N] <ng> occurs where there's also an
> David> i--ring, ding, thing, fling--the vowel is always [i], never
> David> [I].
>
>So, you've never heard the TV news on CNN? Words like "think" should
>be frequent enough to spot.
I'm not accustomed to the people on CNN thinking much, but I suppose that's
another matter completely...
> David> I've never heard anyone make the first two sounds of 'sin'
> David> and 'sing' the same, ever.
>
>What do you think are the vowels in these two words?
They are [sIn] and [siN(g)] for me.
- Vae
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>I indeed find it both strange to hear [IN] in words with /iN/, as well as
>difficult to say [IN] without shifting it to [iN].
Exactly the reverse for me. Strange.
Well, it isn't so strange after all: imagine what needs to happen when
someone actually says [iN]. [i] is a high front vowel. [N] involved a
closure much more to the back. Rather a strange movement of the
tongue. Possible only when speaking relatively slow.
Peter Dy
Yes, thanks other Peter D. I think I'll buy it too.
But again, even if you know how to pronounce a "turned m", a high back
unrounded vowel, you'll need to know that Thai and Vietnamese have such a
sound, and many popular "Learn Thai/Vietnamese" books don't tell you that,
they just give English approximations or tell you to just listen to the
tapes.
Peter
David Thomas
<ar-ai...@rudhar.com> writes:
>11 Sep 2003 22:15:58 GMT: vael...@aol.comUspamo (David Thomas): in
>sci.lang:
>
>>I'm not really bothering about length; my chief concern here is the
>difference
>>between variants on [i] and on [I], where I've never heard the latter in any
>>words with a following [N]. 'Ink,' for me, is [iN(k^h)]--where, when there
>is
>>a k on the end, it's aspirated a bit.
>
>Then you don't hear it right. The English word 'ink' is always [INk],
>never [iNk], and the k is never aspirated in that situation.
It certainly is for me!
And yes, I do have [i] in 'ink!'
And by now I've had a significantly large number of people, if confused as to
why I would want them pronouncing 'sing,' 'sink,' 'seen,' or 'sin,' say these
words, and all do have [i]. I know it's [i] and not [I] because I do know the
difference, as I have very good sound files for each. I'm quite sure I'm
correct about this, and I'm betting it's a regional variation, as has been
mentioned.
As for the aspiration, I think that's how [iN] and [iNk] are distinguished for
me. 'Sing' often lacks a g on the end, while 'sink' has a mildly strong k.
- Vae
Peter Dy
"David Thomas" <vael...@aol.comUspamo> wrote in message
news:20030912045815...@mb-m11.aol.com...
Yes, of course. Curly-tail c is more forward in the mouth. Note that
pinyin <x> only occurs before high front vowels, so the frontness of
curly-tail c sounds more "natural", as opposed to the further back [C]
Would it be reasonable
> to represent this sound as [C{alv}]?
You mean as a ASCII symbol? I don't get it. It's an alveolo-palatal
fricative.
> >> Also, the two German sounds always described as 'ach-laut' and
> >> 'ich-laut'--what are they?
> >
> >ach-laut is [X]
> >ich-laut is [C]
> >
> >But there is [x] in German too, in words like <Buch>.
>
> That makes pronouncing German SO much easier now that I know what I'm
trying to
> say! Now I just have to figure out how these sounds are written... heh
heh.
How they are written? Again, don't get it. Look at one of my other posts
to see where [X] and [x] occur. They are both spelled the same.
Peter
Peter Dy
"David Thomas" <vael...@aol.comUspamo> wrote in message
What are you talking about?? "if each character didn't change so often how
it's pronounced depending on environment"?? Don't understand. Character,
when talking about Chinese, doesn't refer to sounds.
Peter
the guy with the eye
news:m3he3iu...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de...
> >>>>> "David" == David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes:
>
> >> same vowel sound?
>
> David> Yes, the first two sounds of 'seen' and 'sing' are [si],
> David> sounding quite like Italian/French 'si,' though the sound
> David> of the English words is, of course, longer in duration.
>
> Even if that's a regional accent, there is still CNN, BBC, etc. to
> which we can refer. The news broadcasters do pronounce "seen" as
> [si:n] and "sing" as [sIN]. I know how "si" is pronounced in
> "sign" has [I], which is different from [i].
>
>
> theme, thin, think
> beep, beat, blick
>
> More funny: seek, sick
> peak, pick
In German, the i before [N], as in "singen" is not quite the [I] that is
used in other environments, it's somewhat closer to [i]. I'm not sure, but I
assume it's similar in English. Recently, I actually heard someone something
like "talking" with a real [I] and it sounded weird to me, as though he had
first intended to say "talkin'", but then decided to say "talking".
the guy with the eye
news:20030912052305...@mb-m11.aol.com...
"Sing" can have a [g] on the end in your accent?
Ruud Harmsen
sci.lang:
>As for the aspiration, I think that's how [iN] and [iNk] are distinguished for
>me. 'Sing' often lacks a g on the end,
Not often, but always. English 'sing' is [sIN], not [sINg]. 'Singer'
is [sIN@] (except in Northern England: [sINg@], but 'finger' is
[fINg@].
>while 'sink' has a mildly strong k.
Yes.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> > > [i:] as in <seek>, /i/ perhaps, as distinct from /I/, but NOT [i]
> >
> > Length is irrelevant in this example. /iy/ and /i/ respectively, but
> > David is already confused enough about phonemics.
>
> So what did you want me to write? "[i] as in <seek>"?
> You talka da Engleesh widda French accent in ya necka da
> woods? And what the bloody hell do /iy/ and /i/ mean?
> /iy/ as in "fille", /i/ as in "bitte"?
Since they represent English phonemes, French and German words are
irrelevant.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Peter T. Daniels
> > Peter> and there is no [iN] *<seeng> in English.
> >Tell us what vowel you use when pronouncing the following words
> >(ignoring length for the moment):
> >
> > "seem", "seen", "sing"
> > "zip", "sit", "sick"
>
> For the top row I have /iy/, IPA [i], and for the bottom /i/, IPA [I]. It
> might seem interesting that I have [I] in 'been' rather than [i], and rhyming
> 'been' with 'seen' sounds British to me.
Why "interesting"? You do claim to be American, after all; the word is
/bin/ [bIn].
/biyn/ [bijn] is "bean."
It is only the claim that the /i/ in "sing" is realized as [ij] that is
incredible.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <m3he3iu...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>, LEE Sau Dan
> <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>
> >>>>>> "David" == David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes:
> >
> > >> Try pronouncing English "seen" and "sing". Are you using the
> > >> same vowel sound?
> >
> > David> Yes, the first two sounds of 'seen' and 'sing' are [si],
> > David> sounding quite like Italian/French 'si,' though the sound
> > David> of the English words is, of course, longer in duration.
>
> >Even if that's a regional accent, there is still CNN, BBC, etc. to
> >which we can refer. The news broadcasters do pronounce "seen" as
> >[si:n] and "sing" as [sIN].
>
> >I know how "si" is pronounced in French/Italian/Spanish. And the vowel
> there is [i], not [I].
>
> Exactly my point.
>
> >English "sign" has [I], which is different from [i].
>
> No, no, no... it has a diphthong! I'm guessing Smith-Trager renders it
> something like /ay/. I would write it [ai], but most people around here
> pronounce it [&], with no diphthong at all, much less any sound of /i/--damned
> south! I commonly see this diphthong represented as [aI]. My rendering is
> much closer to [ai:].
It was a typo, dummy.
> >More words to try:
> >
> > theme, thin, think
>
> ...roughly [Tim TIn TeNk]
Now it gets even more hilarious. You're now claiming that /i/ is raised
before /N/ -- bute LOWERED before /Nk/ ?????
> > keep, kit, kick
>
> [kip kIt kIk]
>
> > beep, beat, blick
>
> [bip bit blIk]--that last one is a 'bi' 'El' 'c&p@tUl ai' 'ke'
>
> >More funny: seek, sick
> > peak, pick
>
> [sik sIk pik pIk]--the best minimal pairs you've picked so far...
>
> You're just really off the goofometer here...
What is your native language?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <m3u17iu...@mika.informatik.uni-freiburg.de>, LEE Sau Dan
> <dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> writes:
>
> >>>>>> "David" == David Thomas <vael...@aol.comUspamo> writes:
> >
> > David> Checking the IPA charts, though, and emulating as best I
> > David> can, I can now tell the difference, and am starting to hear
> > David> it. [S] sounds a whole lot more 'frictive' to me, if that
> > David> makes any sense, and the [C] sounds more 'hissy.'
> >
> >And this latter sounds like the "h" in "huge" (in comparison to
> >"hall"). The extra friction or hissing that you do in pronouncing
> >"huge" is the right direction.
>
> Actually, I don't do anything strange with 'huge,' as I hear many people do.
> For me, it's just [hjudZ], and I tend to hear something very much like
> [C{alv}juwdZ] from other English speakers.
What's your native language?
> >But remember, neither "sh" nor "x" in Pinyin go with a rounded lips.
> >Many English speakers are tempted to round their lips when they see
> >"sh". While that's tolerable, it's not correct, and creates a typical
> >"Western" accent. Maybe, that's why people like to say <xing> sounds
> >like "sing".
>
> That's okay. I don't round my lips when saying any of these sounds. I'm
> fairly sure that's only common when shushing someone, and even then I don't do
> it.
What's your native language?
Wait a minute ... did you grow up a hearing child in a Deaf community?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <3F605D...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >> I don't know anyone who pronounces 'sing' with an [I] (capital 'eye') of
> >any
> >> sort. In any dialect of which I'm aware, it's always a [i]. [IN] sounds
> >> *very* weird to me. So, I think you're just being argumentative.
> >
> >You're screwy.
> >
> >Or you haven't even learned the most basic phonetic symbols???
> >
> >[i] is in <seek>
> >[I] is in <sick>
> >
> >[n] is in <sin>
> >[N] is in <sing>
> >
> >and there is no [iN] *<seeng> in English.
>
>
> In fact, anywhere an [N] <ng> occurs where there's also an i--ring, ding,
> thing, fling--the vowel is always [i], never [I]. I've never heard anyone make
> the first two sounds of 'sin' and 'sing' the same, ever.
So you have never heard a radio or TV? Are you maybe a prisoner in some
backwoods hillbilly encampment that really does "speak Elizabethan
English" (not that that would account for the anomalies, either)?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <vm20sm3...@corp.supernews.com>, "Jim Heckman"
> <wnzrfe...@lnubb.pbz.invalid> writes:
>
> >On 11-Sep-2003, "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> >in message <3F605D...@worldnet.att.net>:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> [i] is in <seek>
> >> [I] is in <sick>
> >>
> >> [n] is in <sin>
> >> [N] is in <sing>
> >>
> >> and there is no [iN] *<seeng> in English.
> >
> >indeed closer to [i] than to [I], and what's more I perceive it
> >discussions that have taken place in alt.usage.english, this is
> >apparently the case for a not insignificant number of American
> >accents.
>
>
> 1) Am delusional,
> 2) Don't know IPA (I checked myself against IPA Help, though),
> 3) Need my ears checked.
>
> My /iy/ is certainly more close and front than my parents', but even theirs is
> a definite /iy/, not /i/, though their /i/ is not quite as close-mid as mine.
> They also have /siy/ in 'sing'--not sure how [N] translates into Smith-Trager.
/N/
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On 11-Sep-2003, "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> in message <3F605D...@worldnet.att.net>:
>
> [...]
>
> > [i] is in <seek>
> > [I] is in <sick>
> >
> > [n] is in <sin>
> > [N] is in <sing>
> >
> > and there is no [iN] *<seeng> in English.
>
> In my idiolect, as apparently in David's, the vowel in <sing> is
> indeed closer to [i] than to [I], and what's more I perceive it
> to be phonemically /iy/ not /i/ (in Smith-Trager notation). From
> discussions that have taken place in alt.usage.english, this is
> apparently the case for a not insignificant number of American
> accents.
Wells p. 540 discusses "vowel plus nasal" in the American South and has
never heard of this phenomenon. Has this just appeared in the last 20
years?
Peter T. Daniels
He's talking about the characters of the pinyin alphabet and of the
other romanizations.. Where does he ever mention Chinese characters??
Peter T. Daniels
No, David. They are chosen for fidelity to the phonemic system of
Mandarin.
I thought we straightened you out about phonemes weeks ago.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "John Swindle" <jcsw...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:lwOdnWiMG94...@giganews.com...
> >
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:3F605C...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > John Swindle wrote:
> > > > . . .
> > > > . . . Is there a good starting point (a book or website, say) for
> > > > laypersons interested in learning something about articulatory
> > > > phonetics?
> > >
> > > J. C. Catford, *Practical Introduction to Phonetics* (recent second
> > > edition). It has excellent instructions for making just about every
> > > speech-sound in any language.
> > > . . .
> > >
> >
> > And is available from big, online booksellers at a very reasonable
> > price. Thanks for suggesting it.
Reasonable price? Isn't it still published by Oxford?
> Yes, thanks other Peter D. I think I'll buy it too.
>
> But again, even if you know how to pronounce a "turned m", a high back
> unrounded vowel, you'll need to know that Thai and Vietnamese have such a
> sound, and many popular "Learn Thai/Vietnamese" books don't tell you that,
> they just give English approximations or tell you to just listen to the
> tapes.
Nu, listen to the tapes!
Jim Heckman
On 11-Sep-2003, "Peter Dy" <pet...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
in message <LHa8b.1553$2T6....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>:
> "David Thomas" <vael...@aol.comUspamo> wrote in message
> news:20030911224102...@mb-m02.aol.com...
[...]
> > Also, the two German sounds always described as 'ach-laut' and
> > 'ich-laut'--what are they?
>
> ach-laut is [X]
> ich-laut is [C]
>
> But there is [x] in German too, in words like <Buch>.
Could you tell us more about the (allophonic?) distribution of
[x] vs. [X] for the German 'ach-laut'?
--
Jim Heckman
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Dennis wrote:
>
> > By "like," you do not mean "identical." shu and xu are not at all identical.
>
> Là, t'enfonces les portes ouvertes. Not only are "sh" and "x" different,
> but the "u" of "xu" is actually an abbreviation for "ü" (French u as
> in "tu") when the "u" of "shu" is about the vowel in English "shoe".
> Two sounds could hardly be more different.
Two sounds could hardly be more the same: the differ in the value of
exactly one phonetic feature, [+/- round].
Helmut Richter
>> ach-laut is [X]
>> ich-laut is [C]
>>
>> But there is [x] in German too, in words like <Buch>.
> Could you tell us more about the (allophonic?) distribution of
> [x] vs. [X] for the German 'ach-laut'?
Maybe I am biased as a native speaker of German (do not natives tend
to overhear the difference between allophones?) but when I have read
about German [x] in this thread I have kept trying to produce or to
hear any difference between the [x] in "Buch" [bu:x] and "Bach" [bax]
- to no avail. It must be still less audible than the difference of
[k] between "Kugel" and "Kegel" which I can hear although I never
notice it.
In contrast to that, the difference between [C] and [x] is obvious and
a speaker using the wrong one of these would immediately be noticed as
speaking "wrong".
Whether [C] and [x] are allophones of the same morpheme has been
discussed often enough. I find the arguments pro more convincing.
Helmut Richter
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <vm3dcm8...@corp.supernews.com>, Jim Heckman wrote:
>
> >> ach-laut is [X]
> >> ich-laut is [C]
> >>
> >> But there is [x] in German too, in words like <Buch>.
>
> > Could you tell us more about the (allophonic?) distribution of
> > [x] vs. [X] for the German 'ach-laut'?
>
> Maybe I am biased as a native speaker of German (do not natives tend
> to overhear the difference between allophones?) but when I have read
No, natives tend to be completely unaware of allophones.
> about German [x] in this thread I have kept trying to produce or to
> hear any difference between the [x] in "Buch" [bu:x] and "Bach" [bax]
> - to no avail. It must be still less audible than the difference of
> [k] between "Kugel" and "Kegel" which I can hear although I never
> notice it.
>
> In contrast to that, the difference between [C] and [x] is obvious and
> a speaker using the wrong one of these would immediately be noticed as
> speaking "wrong".
>
> Whether [C] and [x] are allophones of the same [phon]eme has been
> discussed often enough. I find the arguments pro more convincing.
How to explain <-chen> otherwise?
Helmut Richter
> Helmut Richter wrote:
>> Whether [C] and [x] are allophones of the same [phon]eme has been
>> discussed often enough. I find the arguments pro more convincing.
> How to explain <-chen> otherwise?
[x] after a, o, u
[C] after ä, e, i, ö, ü, consonant, and at morpheme onset.
Complementary distribution. Any counterexamples except really foreign
words such as "Chuzpe"?
Helmut Richter
Jim Heckman
On 12-Sep-2003, "Jim Heckman" <wnzrfe...@lnubb.pbz.invalid> wrote
in message <vm3dcm8...@corp.supernews.com>:
Never mind. I posted this before reading your and Ruud Harmsen's
subsequent responses to LSD.
--
Jim Heckman
LEE Sau Dan
Peter> Yeah, I think he was: There is "curly-tail c" and "c
Peter> cedilla". I think he thought I was using curly-tail c to
Peter> describe squiggle on the c cedilla. They are two different
Peter> squiggles.
I see. I misunderstood that "curly-tail" for the cedilla! :P
Yeah, Mandarin Pinyin's <j>, <q> and <x> are transcribed in IPA with
letters using a curly tail that loops around itself, pointing in a
downward direction eventually.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
LEE Sau Dan
Peter> Well, I'm sure you know that [X] is uvular and [x] is
Peter> velar.
OK. I now know the difference.
Peter> Anyway, you have [X] after low back vowels, in words like
Peter> in <ach, Dach, Bach, doch, roch>.
Peter> You have [x] after high/mid back vowels, in words like
Peter> <Buch, Tuch, hoch>.
I see. I wasn't aware of this subtle difference. I always use [x].
I've to listen more carefully.
Peter> They speak funny down south where you are, so I'm not sure
Peter> if they do it like that there.
Unfortunately, in this university city, people tend to speak
Hochdeutsch to foreigners. So, I seldom hear the regional dialects.
Not even on radio stations. I've only met a few locals who pronounce
"ei" as [ei] instead of [ai] when speaking to me. And my colleague
from Wien (Vienna) also pronounce the diphthong in this way.
Peter> But next time you hear a loud, emphatic <doch!>, you should
Peter> be able to note how that "ch" is further down in the throat
Peter> then the "ch" you would use for a word like <Buch>.
I'll try. They have been sounding the same to me. That [X] would
then sound like the uvular "r" to me. :(
Peter> There's been a lot of discussion about the phonemic status
Peter> of these sounds on this newsgroup and elsewhere. First,
Peter> [X] and [x] are allophones, so there are no minimal pairs.
Peter> And it seems like [C] is also an allophone here, all three
Peter> of them allophones of /x/.
Yeah. I can tell the difference between [x] and [C], but not [X] from
[x]. The local people also seem to pronounce "-ig" as [Ik] (but not
exploded) instead of [iC].
LEE Sau Dan
David> And by now I've had a significantly large number of people,
David> if confused as to why I would want them pronouncing 'sing,'
David> 'sink,' 'seen,' or 'sin,' say these words, and all do have
David> [i].
The same vowel in all these 4 words?
Do you also _hear_ this on CNN or BBC news?
David> I know it's [i] and not [I] because I do know the
David> difference, as I have very good sound files for each.
Do you also have sound files of how you pronounce the 4 words you
listed above? Would you mind putting them (as .wav or .ogg or .mp3
files) on the web and giving a URL here so that interested people can
hear it?
David> As for the aspiration, I think that's how [iN] and [iNk]
David> are distinguished for me.
Me too. I can't believe it's not aspirated.
David> 'Sing' often lacks a g on the end,
It shouldn't. Don't be confused by the spelling. (The Latin alphabet
doesn't have a single letter for the [N] sound.)
David> while 'sink' has a mildly strong k.
Yeah. It's aspirated.
LEE Sau Dan
Ruud> Then you don't hear it right. The English word 'ink' is
Ruud> always [INk], never [iNk], and the k is never aspirated in
Ruud> that situation.
Are you sure that it's not aspirated?
How about "sink"? Aspirated?
LEE Sau Dan
Peter> But again, even if you know how to pronounce a "turned m",
Peter> a high back unrounded vowel, you'll need to know that Thai
Peter> and Vietnamese have such a sound,
And Japanese, too.
Peter> and many popular "Learn Thai/Vietnamese" books don't tell
Peter> you that, they just give English approximations or tell you
Peter> to just listen to the tapes.
The same goes for most Japanese-teaching books. The don't explain how
the vowel spelt with "u" is different from the German "u". Thus a
typical foreigner accent. (Japanese has no [u], and it has a 5 vowel
system. So it is very reasonable for it to use "u" for the unrounded
[u] sound.)
Ruud Harmsen
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>: in sci.lang:
>Unfortunately, in this university city, people tend to speak
>Hochdeutsch to foreigners. So, I seldom hear the regional dialects.
>Not even on radio stations. I've only met a few locals who pronounce
>"ei" as [ei] instead of [ai] when speaking to me. And my colleague
>from Wien (Vienna) also pronounce the diphthong in this way.
More like [EI], I expect.
> Peter> But next time you hear a loud, emphatic <doch!>, you should
> Peter> be able to note how that "ch" is further down in the throat
> Peter> then the "ch" you would use for a word like <Buch>.
>
>I'll try. They have been sounding the same to me. That [X] would
>then sound like the uvular "r" to me. :(
No, because that one trills (only a little, sometimes), the other one
does not.
Ruud Harmsen
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>: in sci.lang:
>>>>>> "Ruud" == Ruud Harmsen <ar-ai...@rudhar.com> writes:
>
> Ruud> Then you don't hear it right. The English word 'ink' is
> Ruud> always [INk], never [iNk], and the k is never aspirated in
> Ruud> that situation.
>
>Are you sure that it's not aspirated?
>How about "sink"? Aspirated?
I'm pretty sure it's not. Exploded, yes, aspirated no.
In English t, p and k are only aspirated at the start of a syllable,
before a vowel, if not preceded by s.
But I'm not a native speaker. The opinion of native speakers says
more.
Ruud Harmsen
<dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>: in sci.lang:
> David> 'Sing' often lacks a g on the end,
LSD:
>It shouldn't.
It shouldn't lack, so it should have it? You mean you actually
pronounce 'sing' as [sINg] ? Very strange.
Or did you mean "shouldn't end", "shouldn't have"? In that case, I
agree.
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@worldnet.att.net>: in sci.lang:
French u is (almost) front, and rounded.
Des Small
> Peter Dy wrote:
> >
> > "John Swindle" <jcsw...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:lwOdnWiMG94...@giganews.com...
> > >
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3F605C...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > > John Swindle wrote:
> > > > > . . .
> > > > > . . . Is there a good starting point (a book or website, say) for
> > > > > laypersons interested in learning something about articulatory
> > > > > phonetics?
> > > >
> > > > J. C. Catford, *Practical Introduction to Phonetics* (recent second
> > > > edition). It has excellent instructions for making just about every
> > > > speech-sound in any language.
> > > > . . .
> > > >
> > >
> > > And is available from big, online booksellers at a very reasonable
> > > price. Thanks for suggesting it.
>
> Reasonable price? Isn't it still published by Oxford?
Not everything Oxford do is at $200.17, you know. 19 UKP, 25 USD
seems reasonable enough, and I'll throw in my own endorsement as well.
> > Yes, thanks other Peter D. I think I'll buy it too.
> >
> > But again, even if you know how to pronounce a "turned m", a high back
> > unrounded vowel, you'll need to know that Thai and Vietnamese have such a
> > sound, and many popular "Learn Thai/Vietnamese" books don't tell you that,
> > they just give English approximations or tell you to just listen to the
> > tapes.
>
> Nu, listen to the tapes!
Heh. The old (pre-70's, say) yellow and blue Teach Yourself (Some
Language) books from the English University Press often started with a
decent overview of the phonetics of the language in question, often
using the IPA. About the only current survivor from that era is the
Icelandic one, which happens to be an utter dog, but the
Danish/Swedish/Norwegish and Dutch ones were (and are) all at least
reasonable, and they also make reasonable reference grammars.
I recently picked up a Harrap's Biligual Series Italian course (1924),
which has a series of (very short) readings of increasing complexity
in standard orthography, phonetic transcription and translation. The
advice given is to practise the transcription until fluent, and use
the (also very short) reference grammar at the front only as a last
resort.
Plus, the texts are all top quality entertainment:
"""
XXXVII: Un ballo villereccio / A country ball
Noi intanto avevamofatto conoscenza, e contratto óbbligo di ballare
insieme per tutta la sera coll' últime venute.
Meantime we had become acquainted, and put ourselves under the
obligation to dance all the evening with the last comers.
"""
Des
hates it when that happens
--
des....@bristol.ac.uk
Des Small
Surely [+/- front]? (The "turned m" thread went thataway --->)
Des
needs two different [y]s these days.
--
des....@bristol.ac.uk
LEE Sau Dan
>> The in Mandarin <xing> is the same [i] as in
>> French/Italian/Spanish "si".
David> One reason I never use the orthographic angle brackets is
David> that some readers misinterpret it as HTML.
Consider using a decent news reader. Why does it assume something
that should be text ONLY to contain HTML tags?
David> Every part of your post in my reader after you wrote 'i'
David> (substituting the quotes in for the brackets) was
David> italicized... heh heh.
Get a less buggy program. It isn't my fault when your news reader is
buggy, and it isn't my responsible to prevent triggering a bug in your
reader.
LEE Sau Dan
>> English "sign" has [I], which is different from [i].
David> No, no, no... it has a diphthong!
Oh! A typo of "sing". :P
>> theme, thin, think
David> ...roughly [Tim TIn TeNk]
[e]? Funny. I've never heard it pronounced like that!
>> keep, kit, kick
David> [kip kIt kIk]
I pronounce them the same way.
>> beep, beat, blick
David> [bip bit blIk]
Me too.
>> More funny: seek, sick peak, pick
David> [sik sIk pik pIk]
David> --the best minimal pairs you've picked so far...
(That's why I think it's more funny.)
LEE Sau Dan
>> So, you've never heard the TV news on CNN? Words like "think"
>> should be frequent enough to spot.
David> I'm not accustomed to the people on CNN thinking much, but
David> I suppose that's another matter completely...
They don't do whatever they say. They can say "think" without
themselves thinking.