Caio Rossi wrote:
> You're right! Americans ( and the British? ) insert a schwa sound ( @) in
> one-syllable words between the ending R or L sound and the preceding vowel.
? You thinking backwards today, Caio? :) I know what you mean, though.
Actually the vowel the (British) English seem to corrupt with a
following schwa is i, as in French or English "il" (is there a similar
sound in Protuguese?. I'll type that word again, rather than delete it
as I rather liked the look of it. Portuguese. That's better.) I was told
it was the big give-away of an Englishman speaking French: ee-shwa-l.
> As the inverted [V] phonetic symbol, as in DULL, sounds as a stressed schwa,
> you must have heard a sustained long vowel with a 'crack' in the middle ( so
> it's not sustained!!! I'm so stupid! ).
I think the correct (British) English sound for a sustained
u-as-in-dull-or-as-in-bug-or-as-in-love (they all come out the same) is
almost the same as ah. So sing a string of four arpeggios to "such dull
bug love" (the story of my life ;) ) should sound like sahch dahl bahg
lahv.
>
> Also, when and A precedes that R or L sound in one-syllable words they
> won't pronounce it as the 'xiphopagus'
The what??? Another lovely word, may I trade it for my Protuguese?
/ae/, as in fAt, but as the /e/ as in
> bEd followed by the 'xyphopagus' @+r. Example: 'care' will most likely be
> pronounced as /ke@r.../ rather than /kaer/ or //.
I think that may be true for Merkans. It's true for British when the
word ends in an R - in fact they tend to sound the shwa and then not
bother with the R at all - but I'm not sure about the L, apart from with
the ee and oo vowels. In spoken English the two faults are (1) bringing
the tip of the tongue up while the vowel is still being sounded, so
bringing in the L early, or (2) replacing the L with a sort of oo sound
(particularly in southern England)
Hope this makes sense when read with your own accent!
cheers,
Linda
|
|  |
