Linda wrote:
> ? You thinking backwards today, Caio? :) I know what you mean, though.
Didn't get it?! Why backwards? If you mean I was referring to British
English, not American, no, I wasn't! I read that in my "Manual of American
English Pronunciation", which is a respected reference ( or WAS??? ) and my
own experience. I generally hear that @ . BTW, we don't use that inverted
question mark in Portuguese.
>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.)
No, we transform the ending L's into the semi-vowel /w/. Therefore, as we
don't have the elusive short /i/, we would pronounce 'kill' as 'queue'.
> > 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?
That's a siamese twin.
> 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)
I was referring to that phonetic symbol that joins the /@/ and the /r/ when
they're pronounced in the end of a syllable. It's that /@/ with a tail. And,
yes, it referred to American English.
don't you notice that? I know native speakers generally don't notice Sindhi
(sp?) forms, like the /t/ as in prince /prInts/, although it's is noticeable
and regarded by linguists as expectable.
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
|  |
