|
|
How do you pronounce...
How do you pronounce the following words? One condition: I'd like you to give the pronunciation without using IPA or SAMPA, but just the phonemes, for example this way: situation --> sih-chuh-way-shun (there is a reason). Here they are:
Attention Convention Century Comprehension
<<I'd like you to give the pronunciation without using IPA or SAMPA, but just the phonemes>>
That's not possible. Why not use IPA?
<<Com-pru-hen-hun >>
I'd probably pronounce it: comm-pruh-HEN-shun IPA usually shows up as square boxes on this computer -- I guess I have some fonts missing somewhere?
Ok, I'll tell you why. I still haven't managed to understand how native speakers pronounce those words. I know IPA, and I know it's the only way to show true sounds, but I was interested in the combination N + SH, and I have already asked here (with IPA), but still don't understand.
<<Uh-ten-shun>> Why didn't anyone write "Uh-ten-chun"? "Com-pruh-hen-chun"? I expected you to write them that way. I hear them that way, and I was told it's because of some kind of assimilation (N+intrusiveT+SH = N+CH). But does that mean that only happens in fast speech? "Did you" becomes "Did joo", but how is "conven-shun" different from "conven-chun"? I hope someone will be able to tell me the details about N+SH. I know you know. :-)
Well when you say the consonant cluster [nʃ] (or [ns]), there's necessarily going to be a small epenthetic [t] between the nasal and the fricative. But I don't think this epenthetic consonant yields a sound quite as strong as the affricate [tʃ].
Depends - such does definitely take place here, with:
attention [əˈtʰɜ̟̃ntʃɨ̃ːn] convention [kʰɨ̃ːnˈvɜ̟̃ntʃɨ̃ːn] century [ˈsɜ̟̃ntʃɹ̠iː] comprehension [ˌkʰãmpʁiːˈhɜ̟̃ntʃɨ̃ːn] Such is actually distinguished from /ntʃ/ here, though, because /ntʃ/ is normally realized in coda positions *without* [n] here, just leaving the preceding vowel nasalized.
For an example of such a contrast, consider:
bench [ˈbɜ̟̃tʃ] pinch [ˈpʰɪ̃tʃ] finch [ˈfɪ̃tʃ] conch [ˈkʰãtʃ]
I see it varies from person to person. Travis seems to use a real CH, but Lazar have some assimilation but it remains distinct from CH. Well, now I don't know what to do, lol. It is difficult for me to pay attention to the difference every time, so I can't easily know how common it is to use a pure CH sound. Anyone have any advice? Thanks
I would say that it is probably fine for learners to either [ʃ] or [tʃ] for /nʃ/, and if anything, they are probably better off just trying to be consistent rather than worrying about which is "correct".
That said, I think that it would be a good idea for a learner to learn to speak some variety that is internally self-consistent - that is, to not mix features from different dialect groups and rather to only use features that could actually be found together in a real dialect. For instance, it would not make sense to learn English such that one has centralized and derounded monophthongal mid and high back vowels as in Californian English but centralized/fronted historical /ɑː/ as [a] as in many Northeastern, Inland North, or Upper Midwestern dialects.
Hmm, I see, yes, but that's almost impossible for a non-native speaker, unless they move to a certain area where that dialect is spoken. But most are like me, and have never been to the US (or the UK, etc.). I just recognize some features on the radio, on Youtube, etc., and try to learn more about them. If I ever had a native accent, it would be a mix of the most common varieties you can find online. Anyway, thanks, I'll try to keep N+SH a little bit separate from a pure CH, even though if I try to speak fast it comes out like a pure CH anyway.
Yeah, I agree myself; a lot of speakers probably have *both* depending on just how "carefully" they are speaking at the given moment...
|