say says
can't you pronounce "says" as [seiz]?
someone said you should say it as [sez]
i think its more correct to say [seiz] cause dictionary tells you "say" is spoken as [sei] so if "-s" is attached why not say [seiz]?
>> i think its more correct to say [seiz] cause dictionary tells you "say" is spoken as [sei] so if "-s" is attached why not say [seiz]? <<
Then should <does> be pronounced [du:z] by analogy with <do> [du:]?
I think [sEz] is standard in most places, but IME a lot of people from the North of England use the other pronunciation. I think it's possible that older or conservative speakers of American English used [seiz], as it's given as an alternate pronunciation in Webster's Third and some books use "sez" in eye dialect, which implies that the authors didn't pronounce it that way.
<<i think its more correct to say [seiz] cause dictionary tells you "say" is spoken as [sei] so if "-s" is attached why not say [seiz]?>>
No. It's /sEz/ as it's irregular. Irregularities sometimes occur.
i don't understand..................
what's irregular??
www.m-w.com lists both /sEz/ and /seiz/ -
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/say
That said, I rarely if ever hear /seiz/.
<< i don't understand..................
what's irregular?? >>
It's not any different from how other verbs change. "Am" becomes "is", "do" becomes "does", and "say" becomes "says". Just because it's spelled as if it were a regular verb doesn't mean it is one.
- Kef
seiz is common here in Canada
>> seiz is common here in Canada <<
I don't believe you.