As I think of it, schedule is one word with markedly different pronunciations in US and UK. What are other words likewise? Don't count in such words as dance,path,vase.
What are the common words with markedly US-UK sounds?
lieutenant - GA /lu(ː)ˈtɛnənt/ (here [ɰuˈtʰɜ̃ːnɨ̃ʔ] or [ɰuˈtʰɜ̃ːɨ̯̃ʔ]), RP /lɛfˈtɛnənt/
advertisement
privacy
laboratory
leisure
process*
progress*
herb/herbal
eraser
*The British pronunciation of these two words may sometimes be heard in the United States as well.
privacy
laboratory
leisure
process*
progress*
herb/herbal
eraser
*The British pronunciation of these two words may sometimes be heard in the United States as well.
-process*
progress*
herb/herbal
eraser
*The British pronunciation of these two words may sometimes be heard in the United States as well.-
The opposite is true as well.
progress*
herb/herbal
eraser
*The British pronunciation of these two words may sometimes be heard in the United States as well.-
The opposite is true as well.
In my experience, there's one very common word which (although phonemically very similar in both accents) has different enough sounds that may cause some trouble for speakers confronted with the other version:
WATER: RP /"wO:t@/ ["wO:t6] or even ["wo:t6]. GA /"wOt@r/ or /"wAt@r/ ["wQ:4@`] or ["wA:4@`].
WATER: RP /"wO:t@/ ["wO:t6] or even ["wo:t6]. GA /"wOt@r/ or /"wAt@r/ ["wQ:4@`] or ["wA:4@`].
>><<RP /lɛfˈtɛnənt/>>
More precisely, /lefˈtenənt/<<
That's just a matter of English phonemic transcription conventions; I just really am not a fan of the convention used by some British linguists of opposing /e/ and /eɪ̯/ (or before /r/ or in general, /eː/), as such does not seem applicable to many if not most English English dialects. Such a convention seems only really primarily applicable to Australian English and some of the more extreme southeast English English dialects (such as the now-historical Cockney), which actually contrast [e] with [æɪ̯] except before /r/, where [eː] is found. Rather, I prefer to transcribe such as /ɛ/ versus /eɪ̯/ or /æɪ̯/ (or before /r/ or in some dialects, /eː/), a such makes it clearer that the contrast involves significant differences in the quality of the starting points of the vowel phonemes as normally realized.
More precisely, /lefˈtenənt/<<
That's just a matter of English phonemic transcription conventions; I just really am not a fan of the convention used by some British linguists of opposing /e/ and /eɪ̯/ (or before /r/ or in general, /eː/), as such does not seem applicable to many if not most English English dialects. Such a convention seems only really primarily applicable to Australian English and some of the more extreme southeast English English dialects (such as the now-historical Cockney), which actually contrast [e] with [æɪ̯] except before /r/, where [eː] is found. Rather, I prefer to transcribe such as /ɛ/ versus /eɪ̯/ or /æɪ̯/ (or before /r/ or in some dialects, /eː/), a such makes it clearer that the contrast involves significant differences in the quality of the starting points of the vowel phonemes as normally realized.