Over the last 10 years, I've heard more and more Americans not t-flapping words that Americans always t-flapped before. It appears that the high interaction between English speakers worldwide in the Internet Age has led to Americans starting to adopt aspects of non-American English speech.
In American English (I think in other dialects too), putting an h after a vowel tells us that we pronounce the short version of the vowel. It's so well-known that it's often used to explain pronunciation, with "ah," "eh," "uh," showing up in simple pronunciation guides. But O is the exception, given that "oh" uses the long version of the vowel. Why is that? I'm curious how h was first used with vowels in this way, and whether there are clear examples in the beginning of its use that explain this.
This is a question that has been on my mind for a while.
Like does egyptian arabic have any grammatical features that or exclusive to itself and dont occur in any other arabic dialects, and no we arent counting the shenanings of the interogetive particles and demonstretives.
So yall please tell me all you know
My mother tongue has neither /ð/ nor /θ/. When I listen to a language that has the two sounds, I often struggle with the acoustic difference between /θ/ and /f/, but not with their voiced counterparts, i.e. /v/ and /ð/, which sound less confusable to me for some reason.
Is it just me or is there a deeper reason behind it? Also I've read somewhere that th-fronting occured less often to /ð/ in English dialects, so maybe this is relevant idk
P.S. I also find the two approximant counterparts [ʋ] and [ð̞] to be even easier to distinguish. Perhaps voicing plays a role idk
Hi guys, I’m leading an acoustic phonetic project with my supervisor and we will analyze the vowel production by EFL learners. I have almost 5k tokens to get through and I am the only one doing the work on Praat. My question is, is there any way I can ease my job? It will take a lot of time to segment this data and I already feel exhausted. hmu if you have any advice
My friend from Misri Banda, which is east of Nowshera, KPK, says that they speak ‘Dari’ in her village and she speaks it, too. However, she can't understand any Iranians speaking Persian in our university, and when I made her listen to some Dari online she couldn't understand it either. I asked her some words, including counting 1-10 and words for mother, father and sister. It sounds like some language more closely related to Pashto rather than Dari based on these words.
1 = joː
2 = d̪oː
3 = d̪oːˈreː
4 = s̪i.l̪ɔr
5 = pin̪.z̪ɔ
6 = ʃpɒʒ
7 = uwɔ
8 = a.t̪ɔ
9 = n̪o.ha
10 = l̪ɒs̪/d̪ɒs̪
father = piˈl̪ɒr
mother = moːˈreː
sister = xɔr
What language is this and why are people calling it Dari? My friend is Pashtun and speaks Pashto as well, as her first language, and says she wouldn't understand this language if she only knew Pashto and wouldn't be able to understand Pashto if she only spoke this.
The long "o" (written as "ō"):
If etymologically written "ou" in Hiragana = ô
If etymologically written "oo" in Hiragana = ō
The long "e" (written as "ei", "ē" or "ee")
If etymologically written "ei" in Hiragana = ê
If etymologically written "ee" in Hiragana = ē
The long "i" (written as "ii") = ī
Apostrophes used to distinguish digraphs with non-digraphs
Example
すべての人間は、生まれながらにして自由であり、かつ、尊厳と権利と について平等である。人間は、理性と良心とを授けられており、互いに同 胞の精神をもって行動しなければならない。
Subete no ningen wa, umarenagara ni shite jiyū de ari, katsu, songen to kenri to ni tsuite byôdô de aru. Ningen wa, risê to ryôshin to o sazukerarete ori, taga'i ni dôhô no sêshin o motte kôdô shinakereba naranai.
Not sure if it’s just my lack of experience/education with this topic, but it genuinely seems to me that speakers of Indo-Aryan languages in the north of India and speakers of Dravidian languages in the south have the same English accents. No clue as to why that is - do they happen to have similar phonologies despite obviously not being related? Or perhaps it has something to do with a sprachbund?
I'm on the autism spectrum so I know phonologists would probably throw out my data, but both hull and hole are /hoʊl/ for me. A cursory scan of Wikipedia tells me there's a merger usually found in the UK where both become /hʌl/ but not the other way around. How common is this? Is it new? I was born in 1990 in the Midatlantic US.
I am bilingual in Japanese and English (grew up speaking both). Sometimes my friends likes to watch dubs of Japanese media, which I specifically really hate.
I am not sure how to describe it, but I find when dramatic/chuuni/serious lines are translated from Japanese to English, often times they come across as very childish or cringy to me. However, when I listen to them in Japanese, I feel is aesthetically sounds cooler/serious/etc.
I thought about exactly why I see it this way, but can't really put something specific to it. I'm wondering if its just cultural or the aesthetics of the language itself.
What's the point of the letter C in English when both S and K already exist? It's not like C makes a unique sound compared to the other two.
Maybe in some languages C serves a specialized function distinct from S or K, but not any that I'm familiar with.
So what's the deal here?
And how does the size of its corpus compare with historical forms of Celtic languages that never went extinct?
I don’t know much about how manuscripts are interpreted, but I know that Chinese meaning, and especially abstract meaning, is created by aggregating different characters together; where the characters are expressed as pictograms of visual, tangible objects. For instance, porpoise, a creature that was difficult to translate from one of the ancient fairy tales, The princess of Dong Ting lake, is represented by the characters for fish, old woman, and dragon. In this example, it is clear that a porpoise is a more tangible object, and seeing how difficult it already was to translate it, I can make an informed guess as to how much more difficult it is to translate abstract meaning.
To add onto the hassle, I also am aware of the fact that abstract meaning in ancient Chinese can differ widely from said abstract meaning in the modern derivative, hence is expressed using slight variation in characters.
Why is Greek alone on its own branch of the PIE tree? Thanks!
Is there a reason why this name developed like this and not like the other ones?
I work in special ed and have noticed autistic “accents”. The “classic type” is the monotone type, equal emphasis on every word or syllable that can cause people not to notice emotion behind their speech. The other type I notice is the opposite where some speech is emphasized in an exaggerated or rhythmic way that can sound more emotional than the speaker feels.
English is stress timed where syllables have inconsistent lengths and speech has an inconsistent rhythm which often conveys meaning. Everyone has their own specific rhythm regardless of neurodivergence though I’ve noticed less flexibility for my students with autism.
What I’ve also noticed is people with foreign accents sounding more emotional or less emotional than they intend.
What I’m wondering is in languages with more consistent rhythm than English, is the autistic accent less noticeable?
Is there noticeable autistic accents in Spanish?
(Also anecdotally I have noticed my autistic students who have a non English home language have more of a foreign accent than their siblings. I don’t know what to make of that)
Hey everyone! I’m familiar with palatalization of /ti/ and /di/ in Brazilian Portuguese, but I didn’t think it happened to /tu/ and /du/. Why do they do they palatalize the /t/ in English /tu/?
Ive come across quite a few grammar rules that seem to be taught as absolute, but native speakers don't always follow them.
For example, rules like not ending a sentence with a preposition, never splitting an infinitive, or avoiding the singular "they" seem to be ignored in everyday English by many fluent speakers.
I'm curious which grammar rule you think has outlived its usefulness and should no longer be taught as a strict rule. Why do you think it's outdated, and has moderm English already moved on from it?
For example, for pluralization, you have car and cars, child and children, cactus and cactii and octopus and octopuses.
I know each pluralization is dependent on the etymology, but why doesn't English impose its own grammar and simply pluralize it by adding "s" to the end as a general rule? I know other languages do that.
In the "Algemeen Nederlands Woordenboek" (which to my understanding is a reliable source), for example the word "beet" has "Fonetische schrijfwijze[ *b eː t ]" and the word "beer" has "Fonetische schrijfwijze[ *b eː r ]". So supposedly the vowel should sound exactly the same in both words, but every native speaker I know (including myself) pronounces the vowel quite differently in "beer" (more like bɪːr). The ANW does this consistently for words like this.
What is going on here? Am I misunderstanding the IPA or is there a difference between dialects?