Member |
Notice something unusual about our word caesious? It has each the five main vowels, once and only once, in order. There have to be other words like this. Can any of our googlemeisters or yahooligans help find them? | ||
|
Member |
facetious. Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Read all about my travels around the world here. | |||
|
| Member |
from AHD: ADJECTIVE: 1. Eating and drinking in moderation. 2a. Sparingly used or consumed: abstemious meals. b. Restricted to bare necessities: an abstemious way of life. | |||
|
| Member |
unnoticeably  | |||
|
Member |
Of course, the adverbial forms facetiously and abstemiously contain all five vowels, plus the semi-vowel y, in alphabetical order. | |||
|
Member |
"Unnoticeably" brings up a question, one which I raised on another site quite a while back but which was not, to the best of my recollection, firmly resolved. I was taught in grade school that the Y is a vowel when it adds a syllable as in "brightly" or when the other vowels are absent as in "fly." The Y in "boy," therefore, would NOT be a vowel. I've been informed (though I'm not entirely convinced) that a Y is a vowel in a word in which the Y alters the pronunciation of another vowel. By this rule (?) the Y in "boy" would be a vowel since the pronunciation would be the same if you substituted an I for a Y. (sounds like a Biblical misquotation, but let's not digress...) Hoping that this is not one of those cases where the correct way to determine the truth rests on which side of the Atlantic you reside on, I'll leave this to you Wordcrafters to decide. | |||
|
| Member |
So is the Y in "boy" a vowel or not? And if so why and, contrarywise, if not why not? | |||
|
| Member |
quote: I say, "yes". The "o" has a long "o" sound, as in "dote", and the "y" has an "ee" sound, as in "peek" or the "i" in "machine". I submit that both "o" and "i" in "boy" are vowels with distinct pronunciations that, when combined, give the "oi" sound. Tinman | |||
|
Member |
I haven't checked any sources on it, but my tendency is to say the "y" is a consonant in "boy". I always thought when the sound was "ya", as in "yellow", "y" was a consonant. "Boy" has the "ya" sound and not the "ee" sound. I could be wrong, though. | |||
|
| Member |
subcontinental uncomplimentary | |||
|
| Member |
quote: The "y" in "yellow" is a consonant and has a "ya" sound. But I don't see how you get a "ya" sound in "boy". The "y" in "boy" is "i", as in "machine". Both the AHD and M-W Collegiate list the pronunciation of "boy" as "boi". In fact, the terminal "y" is always a vowel and is pronounced "ee" (long "e"), or "i", as in machine, as far as I know. Look up any word that ends in "y" and I think you will find this is so. Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
Well, for what it's worth, Kalleh, I would tend to agree with you that the "Y" on the end of boy is a consonant, but I did look in all my dictionaries, and it appears that we are wrong. On the subject though, I recently found a dictionary published in 1955 at my office: "The American Everyday Dictionary". I thought it might be interesting to look some words up to see how meanings have changed in 50 years. Looking up "boy", I found the following definitions: 1. a male child 2. a grown man 3. a young servant I find number 2 a bit curious...don't you? | |||
|
| Member |
quote: Vowel and consonant, as defined by M-W Collegiate (www.m-w.com): vowel 1 : one of a class of speech sounds in the articulation of which the oral part of the breath channel is not blocked and is not constricted enough to cause audible friction; broadly : the one most prominent sound in a syllable 2 : a letter or other symbol representing a vowel -- usually used in English of a, e, i, o, u, and sometimes y consonant : one of a class of speech sounds (as\p\, \g\, \n\, \l\, \s\, \r\) characterized by constriction or closure at one or more points in the breath channel; also : a letter representing a consonant -- usually used in English of any letter except a, e, i, o, and [/i]u And from the OED: vowel 1. a. A sound produced by the vibrations of the vocal cords; a letter or character representing such a sound (as a, e, i, etc.). ‘A vowel may be defined as voice (voiced breath) modified by some definite configuration of the super-glottal passages, but without audible friction (which would make it into a consonant)’ (Sweet Primer of Phonetics, ed. 2, §32). consonant 1. An alphabetic or phonetic element other than a vowel; an elementary sound of speech which in the formation of a syllable is combined with a vowel. Applied both to the sounds and to the letters (the latter being the historically prior use). Under consonant the OED adds: While a vowel sound is formed in the larynx, and only receives its special quality by the conformation of the oral cavity through which it is sounded, a consonant sound is wholly or mainly produced in the mouth, or the mouth and nose. Vowels thus consist of pure voice or musical sound; consonants are either simple noises or noises combined in various degrees with voice. But a noise may itself be of a continuous and rhythmical character, as a friction, trill, hiss, or buzz, and those consonants in which this is markedly the case approach closely to vowels, and may perform the function of a vowel in a syllable. Hence ‘the boundary between vowel and consonant, like that between the different kingdoms of nature, cannot be drawn with absolute definiteness, and there are sounds which may belong to either’ (SWEET Handbk. Phonetics §164). And there is in the consonants a regular gradation from those which come nearest to vowels and may function as vowels, to those which are most remote, and never so function. From this point of view, elementary sounds have been classed as (1) vowels, (2) semi-vowels (Eng. j and w), (3) liquids (l, , r), (4) nasals (m, n, , ), (5) fricatives or spirants, voice (v, , z, , ), and breath (f, , s, , x), (6) mutes or stops, voice (b, d, g), and breath (p, t, k). Class 2 are more strictly the vowels i, u, functioning as consonants, and classed as consonants; classes 3, 4, 5, are capable, in a decreasing measure, of functioning as vowels; only class 6 have the consonantal function exclusively, p, t, k[i], being the most typical consonants. The use of the liquids and nasals as vowels or sonants is a prominent feature in Indogermanic Phonology. (See VOWEL.) Consonants may also be classed, according to the part of the mouth where they are formed, into labials (p, b, f, v, m, w), dentals, palatals, gutturals, and other minor groups. (See these terms.) In the Roman alphabet (with its Greek accessions), the historical vowels are [i]a, e, i, o, u, y; down to the 16-17th c., i and u were used both as vowels and consonants, a double function served by y and w in various modern languages. It's not so simple as we were taught in school, is it? If you're so inclined, go to http://faculty.washington.edu/dillon/PhonResources http://www.unil.ch/ling/phonetique/api1-eng.html http://victorian.fortunecity.com/vangogh/555/Spell/cons-vowel.htm This last source points out that there is no completely satisfactory definition of "vowel", "consonant" or "syllable". It points out that "hire" and "higher" are pronounced the same, yet one is generally considered to contain one syllable, while the other has two. Why? The vowel sounds have changed over time, too. Here are some sites dealing with the "Great Vowel Shift": http://www.unifon.org/vowel-shift.htm http://alpha.furman.edu/~mmenzer/gvs/ http://icg.harvard.edu/~chaucer/vowels.html Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
"Girl" has changed over the years, too. Originally it referred to a child of either sex, according to M-W Collegiate (www.m-w.com) and the OED (http://dictionary.oed.com) M-W traces it to the 14th century and says it derives from "Middle English gurle, girle young person of either sex". The OED says, " A child or young person of either sex, a youth or maiden. Chiefly in pl.: Children, young people. knave girl: a boy. gay girl: applied to a young woman. Obs." Hugh Rawson, in Wicked Words (1989, Crown Publishers, Inc.) devotes a page to girl. Tinman [This message was edited by tinman on Sun Nov 3rd, 2002 at 23:40.] | |||
|
| Member |
quote: I wonder if this could relate to a usage now considered highly insulting and racist: the use of the word boy to refer to a negro man. | |||
|
| Member |
Thanks mucho to all for your input in this matter and to the numerous links provided. I read most of them and completely understand many of them... Bottom line seems to be that, in many gray areas, one can argue either side of the question and be reasonably certain of one's footing. I like things to be more precise than that but such is life. For me, the Y in "yellow" is a consonant while the Y in "boy" is a vowel and I will sit on the floor and emit loud shrill shrieking noises the next time someone tries to tell me otherwise. Sometimes you just have to make a stand... Regarding "boy" as an adult male, I understand that this usage is derived from the third definition Angel lists: "a servant." In the terms "stable boy" and "busboy," for example, the employees in question could be of any age. That these positions were, to put it mildly, not in the highest demand and were subsequently often taken by those who couldn't find other work (which, in U.S. history, often meant African-Americans) the term "boy" evolved into the racial epithet it has become. In the interest of political correctness, not to mention common decency and respect for one's fellow man (meaning man as "non-boy") the term "shoeshine man" is only a very recent coinage. But who pronounces "hire" with one syllable?? Is that a Britishism I'm not aware of? | |||
|
| Member |
Good grief! I go to Washington DC for 2 days, and this thread gets waaaaay too complicated for li'l old me! However, suffice it to say that when I say "boy", I say the "y" from my mouth, rather than my larynx. Therefore, when I say "boy", the "y" is a consonant! Heh! heh! As for the definition of "a grown man", I fear that you may be right, Shufitz & CJ. Interesting discussion! | |||
|
| Member |
quote: I haven't read it all myself. I just skimmed it to find the part I was interested in. And I certainly can't understand it all. quote: I think most, if not all, dictionaries show "hire" as one syllable and "higher" as two. The AHD does. I think the article was making the point that the traditional division of words into syllables was somewhat arbitrary and had little to do with pronunciation. After all, "boy" has three sounds, but only one syllable. The "rules" say a syllable must contain at least one vowel and may (or may not) contain one or more consonants. Thus, you could separate "boy" into two syllables - bo.y - but convention favors one syllable. The article, Vowels, Consonants and Syllables in English: An English Teaching Perspective, by David S Taylor, School of Education, University of Leeds explains it much better than I can. Of course, the author understands it much better than I do. I think it's worth reading and trying to decipher. I think the information is pertinent to all English, not just British English. (http://victorian.fortunecity.com/vangogh/555/Spell/cons-vowel.htm) Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
M-WCD shows "hire" as two syllables and I am completely unable to pare it down to one. By way of looking for support for this argument, however, I looked up "fire" in this same dictionary and (OH, HOLY SWEET JESUS ON A MOPED!!!) they show it as a single syllable word! Impossible!! "Fire" is pronounced "FIE-yer" and absolutely NOT as "FIR" with a long I as the M-WCD mistakenly proclaims. Anyone whose house is on FIE-yer who runs out into the street shouting FIR (long I) deserves to be ignored! I'm right. The dictionary is wrong. No further discussion will be entertained on this point, thank you very much. | |||
|
| Member |
Two points to the first person correctly identifying the speaker I'm quoting in the subject line of that last post. The sentiment expressed definitely applies. | |||
|
| Member |
Gumby? | |||
|
| Member |
OH, HOLY SWEET JESUS ON A MOPED!!! CJ, I laughed at that comment until I literally fell on the floor!  BTW, I also say "fire" with 2 syllables. The dictionaries are just downright crazy. Does anyone here actually say those 2 words with 1 syllable????  | |||
|
| Member |
quote: Maybe you should try standing up! quote: M-WCD shows "hire" as one syllable, not two. It shows two sound units (phonemes?) and you may be mistaking that for two syllables. The syllables are separated by dots (.) Here are two entries from M-WCD to show you what I mean: Main Entry: hire Pronunciation: 'hI(-&)r Main Entry: fun.da.men.tal Pronunciation: "f&n-d&-'men-t&l "Hire" has one syllable and two sound units, while "fundamental" has four syllables and four sound units. I think you're missing the point. The number of sound units in a word does not necessarily dictate the number of syllables. The author points out the problems and inconsistencies of this and uses "hire" and "higher" as an example. Read the article. (http://victorian.fortunecity.com/vangogh/555/Spell/cons-vowel.htm) Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
quote: In some parts of the country it is pronounced "faar". quote: Yes, you're right C J. There, there, now. Settle down; take it easy. Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
A bit more discussion... Some things we were taught in school we later found out were less than 100% true. Paul Revere didn't complete his famous ride (some guy by the name of Dawes did) and is only remembered ("misremembered," actually) because of Longfellow's historically inaccurate poem. Adjustments may be made. In other cases, however, that which we learned in school is later assailed by other experts (supposedly better informed but who knows?) and I find it increasingly harder to update my view of what is true and what is not. For me a primary example can be found in the field of higher mathematics where, so they tell me, it is now considered a fact that under some circumstances (and please, PLEASE, don't attempt to explain them!) parallel lines may, at some point, meet. My response, aside from writhing on the floor and pulling my hair, is to simply state as calmly as possible that, no, I'm sorry, this is incorrect. Parallel lines by their very definition, dammit, (whoops, sorry) will never meet! That's what makes them parallel lines!! And yet time and time again grinning trigonomitrists pat me on my dear little pointed head and assure me that, yes, I'm an idiot for holding on for dear life to an outmoded point of view which I cherish for its combination of simplicity and correctness. So. "Sound units" and "syllables" are not necessarily the same? (low, mournful groan...) Here we go again. Back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and I was in grade school, this was precisely the definition of a syllable. FIE-yer. Two sound units, two syllables. What could be easier. And, yes, "faar" is an acceptable one-syllable alternative in some parts of the country but if you should stand in the street and shout it, I for one will look off into the distance (as in "Fa, a long long way to run") rather than grab the nearest FIE-yer hose. One line from the quoted source that I completely agree with, Tinman, is that "English orthography can be bewildering." Yes, totally, but often unnecessarily so. In the world of Mr. Gumby (and two points for Arnie for getting it first) most of English orthography is ignored and, for better or worse, I can't help but sometimes envy him his simplistic view of the world. | |||
|
| Member |
quote: A language board isn't really the place to go into complex discussions of non-Euclidean geometry but as a slightly related language point that isn't actually a definition of parallel lines except in the specific case of Euclid. It's an axiom of Euclidean geometry - in other words an assumption. Euclid started by making a number assumptions which he considered to be so opbvious as to require no proof such as - "a straight line can be drawn between any two points" or "any terminated straight line may be extended indefinitely". One of the more contentious ones was that (although his statement of it is rather more technical) "parallel lines never meet". Mathematicians have tried ever since to devise a prove using only the other axioms that this one is necessarily so - tried and failed. By not making the same assumptions you get the various non-Euclidean geometries all of which are entirely self consistent. Sorry for tainting a language board with mathematics. I'll try not to let it happen again. Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Read all about my travels around the world here. | |||
|
| Member |
Boy, I have to agree with CJ's frustration here regarding syllables versus sound units! I had asked some colleagues about the pronounciations, and he thought maybe the answer was that they were diphthongs. I don't think so since there aren't 2 vowels; the AHD gives boil as an example. However, it also gives fine as an example! Why "fine"? "Fire" and "hire" aren't diphthongs, right? I am thoroughly confused now, and the discussion of parallel lines has stretched my brain to its very limit!  | |||
|
| Member |
First off, let's forget about the parallel lines. I say they, by definition, never meet but if you say you can make them not only meet but also mate and that you intend to sell the babies, I will politely smile, congratulate you, and wish you the best on your endeavor. I only brought the subject up as an example of how an established unshakable "fact" from my past is now showing all the stability of Jello in a hurricane. (Related sidenote: News from the world of astronomy says that Pluto may not be a planet after all. Call me inconsistent but I could live with our furthermost neighbor losing its planetary status. And wouldn't it be funny if it turned out that Pluto was where all the parallel lines meet?) Regarding the "Syllables vs. Sound units" debate, here's a possible solution. Those of us who pride ourselves on having a higher than average grasp of the complexities of English (though considering the average, that's hardly much to brag about, but that's a whole 'nother story) we often find ourselves in a position to make gentle and tactful linguistic corrections when and where appropriate. One of the specialties of fellow poster Richard English is to write the managers of stores displaying signs featuring the dreaded "greengrocer's apostrophe" (as in "Apple's on sale) while one of my own bugaboos is redundancy. "He ascended up the stairs" makes my skin crawl. But here's a thought. While it is obvious that there are those "below" us (speaking metaphorically and only in this one particular sense) so it must also follow that there are those "above" us as well. But might this third group be getting a bit too far above us? Might they, despite all their best efforts, become a counter-productive force regarding the proper use of English by driving away those of us in the middle second group, the better-than-average-but-not-perfect people, with unreasonable corrections and improvements to our beloved Mother Tongue? I'm sure most of you, upon correcting First Group people (greengrocers, inmates of maximum security prisons, teenagers etc.) have received negative feedback in such a way that you realized that, in spite of your best intentions, you ended up doing a bit more harm than good. This same feeling must be conveyed to the Third Groupers! When someone, for God knows what reason, attempts to explain that "fire" contains two sound units but just one syllable, would it be possible for those of us in the more reasonable Second Group to, first, get this person's attention (a slap in the face with a wet hallibut would work nicely; see that you always have one handy) and then, second, politely explain that for most English-speaking people (or, anyways, the ones who count - us Second Groupers) "syllables" and "sound units" are synonymous and would they please stop clouding the issue! Yes, I may be sowing the seeds of revolution but our love of the language may require nothing less! To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of Democracy is best watered by the cyber-ink of tyrants!" I'm calling upon all those willing to join the fray to assemble in a secret meeting place to begin making plans. I hear Pluto is available... | |||
|
| Member |
I love the idea of the parallel lines meeting on Pluto. I have this mental picture of two of them in a bar somewhere on the planet sitting close (but not quite touching) and one of them saying "Hey baby, let's get together." Oh well, it's just one of those mental images that I get when I stop hearing the voices. To business. Syllables are always a bit of a contentious issue. They depend on your accent for a start and any tool that gives different answers depending on who is using it isn't all that useful. These strange things called "sound units" are no better for exactly the same reason. A different (and I think better) way of analysing word structure breaks the word down into morphemes. I'll try to be brief but you know how I get carried away. A morpheme is a unit of meaning with the quality that it cannot be broken down into smaller units of meaning. It is not dependent on length and can have one or more syllables but isn't necessarilly a complete word. Many words can be a single morpheme as a whole word. To give an example from Teach Yourself English Grammer, "chimpanzee" would be such a word. It is a single concept and the only possible shortening of it - to "chimp" is no more than an abbreviation of the word itself. These are known as free morphemes. The other type is the bound morpheme. These serve to modify the meaning of a free morpheme and include - prefixes like un-, in- or dis- - terminations like -s for a plural or -'s for a possessive - terminations like -ed to indicate a past tense and so on. Words can consist of combinations of free and bound morphemes. To clarify it I'll give the full set of examples from the exercise in Teach Yourself English Grammar. depart-ure in-access-ible post-script poster in-firm dis-arm dis-ease-d un-appeal-ing dread-ful wicked-ly attempt-ing kettle-s walk-ing re-fresh-ing re-collect As you can see the number of syllables isn't related to the number of morphemes. Because of the nature of the book I've quoted this is a simple treatment of the subject. Any modern book on linguistic theory, specifically those on morphology will give you a much more detailed description - more detailed than you could possibly want to read. I don't know if this is helpful or not. Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Read all about my travels around the world here. | |||
|
| Member |
Bob, with all due respect, I fear you are dangerously close to approaching Third Grouphood. "Morpheme" sounds like something that should ease my linguistic pain but its effect is just the opposite. | |||
|
| Member |
The thread "Say it" in this section contains more chat (good chat, good intellectual chat!) on this topic if anyone would care to review it and/or add to it before it lapses into no-posts-in-60-days purgatory. | |||
|
| Member |
quote: I'm not sure if that was meant to be a compliment or an insult. Either way it's missed the mark. All I am is very good at remembering stuff and regurgitating it with enough conviction to make it sound as if I know what I'm talking about. I pride myself on never actually telling a lie but you should always examine my words carefully. For example when I said that any good modern book on linguistic theory or morphology would go into more detail I didn't say that I'd actually read any did I ? The only book you can say with any degree of certainty that I have read (well apart from Alice of course) is Teach Yourself English Grammar and that hardly qualifies me for your Third Group - Third Grade maybe if I understand your American school system correctly. (On the other hand nothing I've said so far specifically denies that I've read books on morphology.) Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Read all about my travels around the world here. | |||
|
| Member |
CJ, no "danger" about it; Bob has joined that Third Grouphood! Not only have I never heard of "sound units", I certainly haven't heard of "morphemes". To quote a lovable member of this board, "Holy Sweet Jesus on a Moped!" Now, Bob. You seem very knowledgeable about the language. Please explain to me, as I asked in a previous post, why the dictionary uses "fine" as an example of a diphthong. Isn't a diphthong 2 vowels together, like "boil"? While I have a PhD, I feel as though I ought to take an English course again! | |||
|
Member |
The "i" in fine is a dipthong since the word is (in UK English at least) pronounced rather like "fah-een". Of course, the separate vowels are run together so the gap is not apparent as it would be in my phonetic example. A non-dipthong use of "i" would be in such words as "fin" or "is". Other examples of dipthong and non-dipthong usage of vowels include: Cat and gate Pet and fete Cot and mote Pup and fume Most of the other European languages I am familiar with do not seem to use dipthongs - a source of great difficulty in pronunciation for French and Spanish speakers. Richard English | |||
|
| Member |
The diphthong sounds listed on my phonetics chart correspond to the UK pronunciations of the words air joy hope great bright pure clear sound A dipthong isn't actually two vowels together it's more like two vowel sounds fused together. If you want a technical definition the one in Collins English Dictionary is a good as any other. quote: Of course that then gets us right back into the "what's a syllable" discussion. Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Read all about my travels around the world here. | |||
|
| Member |
Perhaps one of the problems is that Americans pronounce words differently than English people do. I can tell you that I don't say "fah-een"; I merely say "fin" with the "i" sounding like "I". Also, how can "bright" have a diphthong with only 1 vowel? Lastly, maybe my colleague was correct that the pronounciation of "fire" & "hire" sounds like 2 syllables because of a diphthong? If not, why does "fine" have a diphthong, but "fire" and "hire" don't? Does "n" versus "r" have anything to do with it? So many questions & so little time!  | |||
|
| Member |
Try this, if it helps, though it's quite hard to do naturally. Try just making just the vowel sound from the words I listed and paying attention to what your tongue does. (I think most are pronounced the same way in the US.) For example when you say the vowel sound from "bit" the tip of your tongue rests against the back of your lower teeth and doesn't move - hence no diphthong. When you make the vowel sound from "bright" it starts in the same position but then, as you articulate the sound curls up towards the palate. You can make the sound without doing this but it feels unnatural. Try saying the vowel from bright but holding your tongue against the lower teeth throughout and you'll see what I mean. They are all like this - for the non-diphthong sounds the tongue doesn't move. For the diphthong ones it does. Remember though - just make the vowel sounds without any consonant sounds to muddle the issue. As for "fine" and "fire". I checked in my dictionary and the diphthong is given for both phonetic spellings. The difference is that in "fine" it is followed by the consonant sound of "n" but in "fire" it is followed by the neutral schwa vowel sound forcing a second syllable. I don't know if this is the same outside the UK. Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Read all about my travels around the world here. [This message was edited by BobHale on Sun Nov 10th, 2002 at 7:56.] | |||
|
| Member |
Bob, I have been sitting here saying all those words and paying attention to my tongue. However, this may be one of those subjects that is better explained in person. I may be getting it, though.... After I read, and reread, your explanation, I went back to my AHD and read about diphthongs again. It says, "A complex speech sound or glide that begins with one vowel and gradually changes to another vowel within the same syllable, as (oi) in boil or (i) in fine". Originally I had misunderstood that explanation to mean there had to be 2 vowels; that's why I questioned bright having a diphthong. | |||
|
| Member |
quote: Feels damn silly doesn't it ? When I was doing my CELTA course we spent half a day not only making noises and working out what our mouths were doing but trying to describe them to someone else so that they could copy the sound without having heard it. I've had some success using the method to get orientals to pronounce the difference between 'r' and 'l' (which they can't usually even hear) but in general it's just too hard to explain to people. I'm sure a speech therapist could probably explain it better. Do we have any speech therapists on the board ? Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Read all about my travels around the world here. | |||
|
| Member |
Oh, My Goodness! I have company for a few days, and I come back to find this? Sound units? Syllables? Dipthongs? Morphemes? Sheesh! I'm lost!  | |||
|
| Member |
The tongue position and the shape of the mouth determine the various vowel sounds. Try saying the vowel sounds: “a, e, i, o, u”. Notice the shape your mouth takes when pronouncing each vowel. “O” is probably the easiest to explain, because that’s the shape of your mouth. Your mouth doesn’t change shape when pronouncing “o”, or with “e”. But notice that it does change shape when pronouncing “a”, “i”, or “u” (at least the American pronunciation). “A” starts with your mouth open relatively wide, then closing half-way. This is hard to see at first, but if you exaggerate it a little, it should become evident. “A” is classed as a “glide” and is the “ei” sound in “weigh” (see the Vowel Trapezoid at http://victorian.fortunecity.com/vangogh/555/Spell/cons-vowel.htm). “I” is the glide “ai”, as in “mai tai”, or the Spanish, “ai, ai, ai.” The Japanese word for “yes” is “hai” and is pronounced like our greeting, “hi”. “U” is pronounced like “ewe” or “you”. These are our long vowel sounds I’m referring to. “A, e, i, o, u” in Spanish is pronounced “a”, as in father; “ei”, as in “weigh”, “ai”, as in “jai alai”; “o”, as in tote; “oo”, as in “boot”. It’s the same in Japanese, though the order is different: “a, i, u, o, e”. And I think it’s the same in many other languages. I’ve heard and believe that the vowels are most commonly pronounced as they are in Spanish, but I can’t verify that. If anyone can, please let me know. Likewise, if you have evidence or a belief to the contrary, please let me know. A diphthong is two vowel sounds together (one glided into the other) and is often (but not always) represented by two vowel symbols. A digraph is one sound represented by two letters, either vowel or consonant, such as the “oa” in “boat”, the “ea” in “beat”, the “ph” in “pheasant” (is the “ea” also a digraph?) or the “sc” in “scent”. A trigraph is one sound represented by three letters: “ieu” in “adieu”. If I am one of C J’s Third Groupers, so be it. Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
No doubt about it, you are in the third group! Bob just had me all settled down about why bright had a diphthong; you say a diphthong doesn't have to have 2 vowel sounds, so I guess that's the case with bright? Perhaps "gh" is a vowel sound? | |||
|
| Member |
quote: quote: Tinman does say there are two vowel sounds - just not necessarily represented by two letters.Tinman and I are saying the same thing. The only difference is that he, quite rightly, has pointed out that the mouth shape as well as the tongue position affects the vowel sound. Boy, who'd have thought we could keep this discussion going for this long ? Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Read all about my travels around the world here. | |||
|
| Member |
Yeah, Bob, I was thinking the same thing. It would be much easier, I think, were we face-to-face with this kind of a discussion. For you grammarians, I have a great quote from a column in today's newspaper. From a textbook for accounting students: "A parent undertaking is also treated as the parent undertaking of the subsidiary undertakings of its subsidiary undertakings." Honest. That is a quote from a real accounting textbook.  | |||
|
| Member |
quote: Sounds good to me, Kalleh! Where shall we meet for this true learning experience? | |||
|
| Member |
Quote: "Bob just had me all settled down about why bright had a diphthong; you say a diphthong doesn't have to have 2 vowel sounds, so I guess that's the case with bright? Perhaps "gh" is a vowel sound." I am puzzled as to why there seems so much difficulty with this, even from English speakers. The dipthong is simply a way of pronouncing a vowel so that it contains two separate sounds rather than one. The separate sounds are implicit in the single letter; the letters surrounding the vowel do not affect the issue (although their presence will show, through the spelling of the word, what its pronunciation is). In the case if "bright", the letter "i" is pronounced as it is in the personal pronoun "I". That is, "ayee". Two separate sounds. It is not pronounced as is the "i" in "bit". That has just one sound. Try stripping out as many of the extraneous consonants as possible and you'll get the idea! A as in Hay E as in Hey I as in Hi O as in Hoy U as in Hugh Richard English [This message was edited by Richard English on Tue Nov 12th, 2002 at 9:33.] | |||
|
| Member |
quote: Sorry, gang, but I have to say that there are better ways to pay attention to one's tongue than to wrap it around a bunch of dipthongs! Dipthong, noun. Extremely skimpy underwear worn by Third Grouphood women. See also: butt floss. | |||
|
| Member |
CJ, I was thinking the same thing! Richard, again, I think the problem is not being face-to-face. It is really simple, I am sure. Yet, I do not say "ayee" when I say "I". I say it with a long "i", or like the word "eye". Now maybe I just pronounce my vowels wrong, who knows! Or maybe we're saying the same thing, but it is just not easy to write about it. | |||
|
| Member |
Oh, I agree, Kalleh! Trying to write out pronunciations is one of the most difficult things I encounter on this board. As above, the "A in hay" and the "E in hey" are the same to my ear. Hay and hey are homonyms to me. I guess it is all what we hear....and you can't hear the way I speak when we type. Oh, to just have some way of verbalizing here.... | |||
|
| Member |
Kalleh. You might not say "I" exactly as I have written it. But you do say "I" in a different way from the way you pronounce the letter "i" in, say "fin". Just try it. The personal pronoun is pronounced as a dipthong (or a "long" vowel); the "i" in fin is a single vowel (or a "short" vowel). Were you to add an "e" to the word "fin" (making it "fine") the the "i" changes to a dipthong and is pronounced as is the personal ptonoun "I". Morgan. I didn't say that the "a" in "hay" and the "e" in "hey" are pronounced differently; I said they were both dipthongs. In fact, most English speakers will pronounce the dipthong the same. However, if you changed the final letter of each to a "t" then the pronunciation of the words thus formed would change and the "e" would cease to be a dipthong. And, indeed, the words would then be pronounced differently. For further clarification, consult any good dictionary where the various pronuciations are shown using the phonetic alphabet. Richard English | |||
|
Copyright © 2002-12