"e" in "investment" same to "u"

Kirk   Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:41 am GMT
<<Why? That's pretty much how everyone says it. I don't know of any other pronunciations.>>

Yeah, that's how everyone says it here. However, the final vowel in "stomach" is more schwalike for other varieties such as British or Australian English. North American English has [I] for schwa in many (tho certainly not all) positions, which is a phenomenon that doesn't really occur in other varieties. Compare:

NAE: "rabbit" ["r\{bIt]
"bigot" ["bIgIt]

BrE: "rabbit" ["r\{bIt]
"bigot" ["bIg@t]

This is why most of us North Americans here have been repeating that for us the second vowel in "investment" is [I]. That is probably not the case for most non-NAE speakers, where they're almost sure to have a schwa there.
Travis   Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:06 am GMT
The big question here is what are the general rules for determining where [I] or [1] is used for vowel reduction or schwas in most North American English dialects. At least in my own dialect, it is clear that [I] or [1] are always used before at least /n/, but in many other cases, such seems far less predictable, to me at least (well, there almost certainly are rules or at least historical phonological reasons, but I have little clue as to what they may be).
Kirk   Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:34 am GMT
Yeah, I've yet to figure out a rule explaining it consistently. All I can tell you right now is where I do have [I] for a historical schwa and where I have an actual schwa.
eito(jpn)   Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:48 pm GMT
I would try to pronounce it acording to IPA shown in my dictionarys. Personally, I would like to avoid "stummic", if possible.

>>Why? That's pretty much how everyone says it. I don't know of any other pronunciations.<<

Why? Because I am just a lerner. Lerners tend to rely on IPA in their dictionarys, but I am sometimes suspicious of some descriptions. One example is "Kentucky". It is hard to believe, but some dictionarys say that the first sillable of this word is pronounced as a shwa. I would rather pronounce almost "Kintŭcky" if I were to speak English.
eito(jpn)   Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:51 pm GMT
>>At least in my own dialect, it is clear that [I] or [1] are always used before at least /n/, but in many other cases, such seems far less predictable, to me at least (well, there almost certainly are rules or at least historical phonological reasons, but I have little clue as to what they may be).<<

Could you tell me how you pronounce "continue", Travis?
Travis   Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:52 pm GMT
As for "Kentucky", I myself, for example, do generally pronounce its first syllable with [1], but this is a case which is a bit more flexible for me than cases like -"land" in country/region names or -"son"/-"sen"/-"sson" in surnames or patronymics, which are invariably pronounced here as [I], not [1] or [@], as it does not sound that off if I pronounce it with [I] or [@] either.
Travis   Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:56 pm GMT
>>>>At least in my own dialect, it is clear that [I] or [1] are always used before at least /n/, but in many other cases, such seems far less predictable, to me at least (well, there almost certainly are rules or at least historical phonological reasons, but I have little clue as to what they may be).<<

Could you tell me how you pronounce "continue", Travis?<<

I generally pronounce "continue" as [k_h1~n."t_hI~:.Ju] myself, even though this is one of those cases where [@] does not sound *that* off to me when used when used in the place of [1].
Uriel   Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:04 pm GMT
I schwa Kentucky. That's because the stress is on TUCK; the vowel in KEN becomes unimportant. "Kintucky" sounds like more of a southern pronunciation (don't they have that pen-pin merger, Kirk & Travis?), so given Kentucky's cultural allegiences, that might actually be an accurate choice, eito.
eito(jpn)   Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:53 pm GMT
Thank you, both.
Kirk   Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:56 am GMT
<<One example is "Kentucky". It is hard to believe, but some dictionarys say that the first sillable of this word is pronounced as a shwa.>>

That's because phonemically it is a schwa, and dictionaries tend to emphasize only phonemic, not phonetic representations for pronunciation.

<< Lerners tend to rely on IPA in their dictionarys, but I am sometimes suspicious of some descriptions.>>

Well, as I said before, dictionaries focus on phonemics, not phonetics, so for phonemic contrasts that's fine. However, in perfecting pronunciation for any language you also need to know the phonological processes which allow you to arrive at the phonetic level of words.

For the record, I have something in between [1] and [@] for the first vowel of "Kentucky" and "continue." One word where I know I consistently use [1] in normal conversation is in relatively unstressed "just."

"I'm just gonna eat now"
[aIm dZ1s "gVn@ it n{U]
nick   Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:02 am GMT
Thanx, Kirk, it's very clear to me now, that's what I say, give me some advice http://uploadhut.com/view.php/397673.wav , my tutor told me today, the "e" in " investment", I can just skip the "e" sound, connect "m" and "m" together, I don't know if that's good.
nick   Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:13 am GMT
<<Travis Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:14 am GMT
For me, the "a"s in "above", "about", and "facility", as well as the "o" in "love" are all the same, all being /@/ (realized as [@] when unstressed, as [V] when stressed).>>

By the way, I should tell anyone who are confused about those two vowels, as [@] when unstressed, you just TRY TO SHORTEN THE SOUND, it will help a lot, finally those two vowels are same, when shorten the [@] when unstressed, it sounds a little different.
Travis   Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:35 pm GMT
Well, it's not a matter of vowel length; for example, in at least my dialect, there exists both [V] (as in "mutt" : /m@t/ -> [mV?]) and [V:] (as in "mud" : /m@d/ -> [mV:d] or sometimes [mV:d_0]), which are pronounced distinctly from each other, even though they are allophonic in nature. The matter is that the point at which [V] is enunciated is slightly backed and lowered compared to that of [@], which is purely central and middle in position.
Uriel   Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:09 pm GMT
I think you're right, Nick; when you're stressing a particular word like "love" you tend to hold the vowel a little longer than when it's in an unstressed part of the sentence. And yes, with "investment" yu can just shorten the second E down to nothing = in-VEST-m'nt. Come to think of it, the first T can disappear as well in rapid speech = in-VESS-m'nt.
nick   Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:51 am GMT
Anyway, thank you for everyone's help!