Произношение t как [ч] в английском

[regn]

Well, actually they are, too.

Actually, they aren't

One more time - vowels:

English vowels are classified as historically short ([ʌ], [ɪ], [ɛ] etc.) or historically long ([iː], [uː], American [ɒː] etc.). Now, there's several phonetic (STRESSED!!!) positions determining their length. Here we'll have different rules for historically short and historically long vowels:

SHORT:
1) open final syllable: N/A
2) open syllable: the vowel is short - swimmer [swɪmə˞]
3) syllable closed by a voiced consonant: the vowel is lengthened - bid [bɪˑd]
4) syllable closed by a voiceless consonant: the vowel is short - pit [pʰɪt]

LONG
1) open final syllable: the vowel is long - bee [biː]
2) open syllable: the vowel is long - reason [`ɹiːzn̩ ]
4) syllable closed by a voiced consonant: the vowel is lengthened - read [ɹiːd]
4) syllable closed by a voiceless consonant: the vowel is short - sheep [ʃi(ˑ)p]

Before a flap both short and long vowels are shortened: reading [`ɹiɾiŋ]

Diphthongs act like short vowels except they are possible in final open syllables, and in this case they're long.

[iopq]

I don't think language should be taught with phonetical precision, but rather on the phonematical level. There is no phonematic distinction in length in American English. I have no doubt that [bI:t] would still be understood as bit

[regn]

iopq

I would just take away all the length markers in the transcriptions if you don't wanna be precise. If you pursue precision, you have to do it right. 

[iopq]

We shouldn't pursue precision unless we specify which dialect we're transcribing

[regn]

yeah, I was actually saying that to Loafer 'cause he indicates length (sometimes in wrong positions).

[Loafer]

"English vowels are classified as historically short ([ʌ], [ɪ], [ɛ] etc.) or historically long..."

I read these tenets one too many times in English Phonetics books and have always been wondering if multiple authors actually understood what the hell they had meant by that. I have a strong suspicion that they had been mindlessly copycatting each other, without actually thinking about it.

"...historically short.,."   Hum... Didn't live long enough to make history?  Happened only during a short period in the annals of man? Maybe it's meant as "...classified, historically, as short and..."?  That would buttress my theory on the origin of the term. Either way, it's still bull, I think, because there are languages where vowels are, indeed, phonologically short and long, like German. Old English was exactly like that, too.  "Good God" used to be /go:d god/. Nothing to it.

First off, let Waco-Jacko keep singing "Beat it!"  Oops... A snag, huh? So I can protract "short" vowels if I want to, right? It's a bit awkward – I will have to "tense" it. So? Wait a minute! Maybe "lax" and "tense" vowels then? Here "linguists" are all over the map. I loosely define "tense" vowels as those, which ALWAYS require these two features in order to be sounded off:

1. Tightly closed vocal cords
2. As a direct anatomical consequence – retracted tongue root position (by that I mean "retraced into the jaw".

This way I have the following ENGLISH sounds as tense:

Ou ("go"), "u" (do, due), "i" (bee), "ej" (may).

I can "tense" any other vowel, like stressed "er" (girl), stressed schwa (bud – that would be your carrot, regn), or even "short I" (bit) if I "have to."

I can make ANYTHING I want short also.

Hey, Loafer. Did you just say "stressed"?  What does that mean? Doesn't that mean, in ALL Indo-European languages,

1.   Loudness is increased
2.   Pitch is changed (could be both higher or lower)
3.   Duration is increased....

What? Duration?  Yep. That's it. That's what makes the first vowel in the word "weather" longer from SIMPLIFIED PACTICAL PHONOLOGICAL point of view. Practically, roughly twice as long as "tense i" in "beat", which, in turn, would roughly sound as long as "bit". Bingo!

I think I can sell it to Russian ESL learners.

Books on phonetics? Screw them! If anyone had ever written anything descent, there would be no need for me to "reinvent the wheel", mere translation from English into Russian and an accompanying MP3 file would have sufficed everyone, your obedient servant including.

ɪ ʊ ɛ æ a - would be "checked vowels" in my artificial version of pseudo-pan-American English. It practically means you cannot have them in the last syllable without coda in any legitimate "American English" word.

[regn]

Ok, end of conversation. I'm not going to argue

If you want to talk about tension, let's open a new thread 'cause it's a whole separate topic. However, tension is really related to length.

All I did was trying to correct your transcriptions which indicated lengths in positions where vowels should be kept short to AVOID A FOREIGN ACCENT 

[Loafer]

Oh, no! Why are you acquiescing? It's ok, buddy.

Just bear in mind that I am working on a PRACTICAL guide for people who are not exactly phonology buffs. That's why I use "r" for what it is and not for "flap".  But, again, it works in practice pretty well.

[Loafer]

Well, "shortened" vowels around "flap" ARE NOT caused by "flap"...

It's the other way around - shortening of the vowels (as everything else around, to that matter) in careless fast and sloppy (sic!) speech causes "flap" instead of /t/ or /d/. This sloppiness is more acceptable for /t/ and less for /d/. Tom Brokow doesn't shorten vowels preceding /d/. It's, by far, NOT a norm. Specifically in a kind of "ivory tower" accent you would expect from someone like myself.

Scott Sigler, on the other hand, does it all the time. But that's the beauty of his otherwise literary piece of shit. It would be nothing but a cheap horror-movie plot without Scott pod-casting his own reading of it, voicing out the crazy Chinese female scientist, the German professor,  and even California female pilot.   That's freaking Scott! I love him for that.

[Loafer]

Why lengthening is important for the Russians? It's because they have tendency to devoice shit. Call, for example, someone by the name of  "Кузнецов":

Кузнецов! Кузнецо-о-о-о-о-в!   /kУз-нjI-'цо:f/   /kУз-нjI-'цо::::::f/


No problem, right? Here, then, try to hyper-articulate that shit:


/kУз-нjI-'цо::::::v/   - no problem either.

How about this:

/kУз-нjI-'цоv/ ?

Works? Not really. It comes out either as /kУз-нjI-'цоvvvvvv/ or good old /kУз-нjI-'цоf/

Neither /v/ nor /f/ is a PLOSIVE. What if I had "КузнецоГ"?   Shit – "гггггг" ain't gonna work.

Not only are /t/ and /d/ plosives, they are also alveolar (in English-sense, not Russian).  What does it mean? Well, it means I can protract the vowels in "bid" and "bit" as long as I want (not to sound funny or just the opposite) without change in meaning of the word. If, on the other hand, I SHORTEN the vowel in "bid" I am going to devoice my /d/.

In case of "ladder" and "latter" such a devoicing is going to result in homophones with the "flap":   /Læɾɚ/  If, semantically it causes no problems because of a well understood context – God speed, /bəɾi/! (/'bə:-di/ sound better?) If it DOES, avoid it. How? By being more accurate with the preceding vowel – it will give you a chance to ramp up to the voicing of the /d/.

After all, stress does mean accuracy. This way it's "accent" and "student".

[Loafer]

Regn, iopq:

What do you guys think? Total BS, or what? See, any "complexities" are a turn off for a busy 30-40 year old. Those who don't mind them (like regn) don't need any help. They are usualy more than okay by the age of 20-25 on their own.  You guys have to keep that perspective.

I'm gonna get some "phonogram" sampling from different speakers.

[iopq]

Проблем с /kУз-нjI-'цоv/ у меня нет, хотя произношу больше как /kУз-нjI-'цоў/
/bəɾi/ лучше /bʌɾi/

[Loafer]

/ə ʌ/  Again, can I just draw a big enough blob in the center of the sound matrix-trapezoid and boldly state that these two guys are various ill-defined allophones of the same sound? It shifts towards /I/ (up and left) in "Rosa's Roses", right before "L" in coda, like "bulb", "dull". I think it works. Sounds are not precise dots, after all. Even when pronounced by the same person. Every extra sound will "cost me" 100 clients!!! And every client comes with 10-50 students!!! 

Okay, the way I babble in that video of mine, what are the biggest issues with it? I tried to stick to "my rules", as it were, whenever I hadn't forgotten to remember them. Where would that require meaningful correction, beyond random slips? I could try to right it and rerecord it sticking with "my rules" in every tiny place, if it is at all possible.

[Loafer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXhssBG7KNo

Stop this video at about 15" position... Take a look at the matrix-trapezoid of "my" sounds. Is anything PRACTICALLY wrong with the picture?

[regn]

Русское "о" зеленым не обозначено

[regn]

ИМХО, если курс должен быть как можно проще, то долготы из транскрипций убрать вообще.



А в словах типа "weather, city, general" представлены ударенные гласные, именуемые усеченными. Ставить после них долготу и учить так произносить - это заведомо учить человека произносить с нелепым акцентом.

[iopq]

ударенные гласные

А кто их ударил?

[regn]

Так правильно говорить

[regn]

//www.google.com --> ударенный гласный

[iopq]

ударный гласный -> 81,900
ударенный гласный -> 1,270

[regn]

ну, во многих книгах, по крайней мере, так пишут и это не неправильно.

[iopq]

ну, во многих книгах, по крайней мере, так пишут и это не неправильно.

Я эти книги читал и потому так и пишу. С чего же это не правильно?

[Loafer]

А в словах типа "weather, city, general" представлены ударенные гласные, именуемые усеченными. Ставить после них долготу и учить так произносить - это заведомо учить человека произносить с нелепым акцентом.

Да, но МОИ учащиеся находятся на весьма скромном уровне пракических навыков и беглости речи, поэтому, если такого не делать, есть риск что они первратят эти гласные в русские "Э", "И" и, в редких случаях, в "Ы". Под "Э" я имею в виду тот звук, которые русский человек инстинктивно гиперартикулированно произносит в ударных слогах заведомо иностранных слов, например "Бэтман". В Английском им ВСЕ слова кажутся "иностранными". В начале пути их акцент будут нелеп при "любых раскладах" (думаю, iopq эта фраза понравится ). При росте уровня беглости этот негативный эффект, мне кажется, сам-собой подкорректируется. Ну какая длительность может быть, когда они большей частью предлоги и артикли с паузами произносят?! Мне кажется, что вначале подход должен концентрироваться на ЛОГОПЕДИЧЕСКОЙ выгоде навыков. Это подобно русскому "Р" - сначала логопед учит произносить "срывы" - "ТРррррррр", "ДРрррррр", а лишь затем "Рррррр". Бесполезно было бы ребёнку говорить, что "даДРРРагие таваТРрррищи" звучит нелепо.

[rrr]

I don't think language should be taught with phonetical precision, but rather on the phonematical level. There is no phonematic distinction in length in American English. I have no doubt that [bI:t] would still be understood as bit

То есть американцы понимаю beat это или bit только по контексту??? (а также  steel - still, feel - fill, etc)

[RawonaM]

То есть американцы понимаю beat это или bit только по контексту??? (а также  steel - still, feel - fill, etc)

По качеству гласного.