Do you pronounce ''world'' with one or two syllables?

I forgot:

Carroll - /k{r.@5/

<<So you pronounce ''Carl'' with one syllable, but ''Carroll'' with two?>>

<<Yes.>>

Lazar,

So, if there were a name spelled ''Cahrel'' you'd pronounced it differently from ''Carl''? Interesting. For me, they'd both be pronounced /kAr.@5/.

My dialect doesn't like joining /r/ and /5/ or rhotic vowels and /5/ in the same syllable, so what happens is that, all words that are like that become two-syllable words.

<<It really is hard to say, because if they were truly two different syllables it seems they should be longer.>>

Kirk,


It's not impossible to have two short syllables. You might have two really short syllables in those words.

Don, you might be mistaking a single heavy syllable for a pair of syllables, which is what many individuals do, especially in cases like these where some of the consonants in such a syllable may be acting syllabically or may be vocalized, or where the syllable in practice contains a triphthong.

=>"The Anglo-Saxons didnt speak English (at least nothing you would recognise. "
-They also didn't speak Dutch or German.<=

So?!Did I say they did?Go twist your own words.

=>"Ever compared old 'english'to Dutch?! Ever heard about beowulf?"
Old English looks nothing like Dutch.<=
-a)You didn't answer the question.
b)by the looks of your'message "Old English looks nothing like Dutch" ...you never read beowulf.


=>And people were speaking Old English before Dutch was created. Dutch was only created in about 700AD, which makes it quite young. And even then it was Old Dutch, and not like the Dutch that is spoken today.<=

No,not really (its great that you know your facts...) Dutch has stayed very much the same compared to old and modern English.

And I for one would not call anglo-saxon English...

And If anglo saxon is English than its 'only' excisted from 1000 on...

<<Don, you might be mistaking a single heavy syllable for a pair of syllables, which is what many individuals do, especially in cases like these where some of the consonants in such a syllable may be acting syllabically or may be vocalized, or where the syllable in practice contains a triphthong.>>

I really don't think I'm mistaking a single heavy syllable for two-syllables, because Merriam-webter's dictionary gives an optional two-syllable pronunciation for words like ''curl'' and ''world''.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=world

Also, I compare my pronunciations of ''Carl'' and ''world'' to my pronunciations of ''Carroll'' and ''squirrel'' and I can tell that I pronounce all of those words with two-syllables. ''world'' for me is definitely /w3`.@5d/, not /w3`5d/.

''world'' for me is no more a one-syllable word than ''water''.

A short piece of Beowulf...

AS)heard under helme: "We synt Higelaces beodgeneatas; Beowulf is min nama.

E)Hard under helm:"We are Hygelac's Table-companions. Beowulf is my name.

D)Hard onder helm : Wij/We zijn Higelacs bondgenoten;Beowulf is mijn naam.

Note that this is modern Dutch!Some people say that Dutch looks more like Anglo-Saxon (aka Old English) than English itself.(Just imagine how old Dutch would have looked!)

Pronunciation listed in Merriam-websters 'w&r(-&)ld

'w&r(-&)ld = /w3`(.@)5d/ in X-sampa.

I pronounce it /w3`.@5d/.

I think some people mistake themselves as pronouncing ''world'' with one syllable instead of two, because they look at the spelling which looks like it has one syllable, and think they actually pronounce it that way, when they really pronounce it as two syllables as if it were spelled ''wereld'' /w3`.@5d/ as it is in Dutch.

I think we should adopt the Dutch spelling for ''wereld'' for our language. It's much more phonetic than ''world'', which looks like it starts like the word ''war''.

''I think we should adopt the Dutch spelling for ''wereld'' for our language.''

That should be:

I think we should adopt the Dutch spelling ''wereld'' for ''world'' for our language.

Woulden't that become "Woreld" than?

Don, don't assume though that all English-speakers pronounce a given word the same way that you do. For instance, here the /l/ (realized as [5]) in <world> is not realized syllabically unless the word in question is pronounced very slowly in a significantly stressed fashion. Normally, said word in the dialect here is /wr=ld/ (you could call /r=/ /3`/ if you want) --> [w3`5d_}], not /wr=l=d/ --> [w3`5=d_}].

<<Don, don't assume though that all English-speakers pronounce a given word the same way that you do.>>

When did I ever assume that all English-speakers pronounce each word the same way I do? I can remember ever saying that. I know that there are dialectal differences. All I'm saying is that I know that I pronounce ''world'' with two syllables. Pronouncing it with one syllable sounds strange and unnatural to me.

"I think we should adopt the Dutch spelling ''wereld'' for ''world'' for our language."

One syllable for me.