 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006Is it impossible? /aisl/ , /ail/
You know the word, 'aisle'. That souds like /ail/. The 's' in 'aisle' is not pronounced. If some non-native speaker says like this, "You can find it over there, on /aisl/ 7.", is it terribly wrong? > You know the word, 'aisle'. > That souds like /ail/. > The 's' in 'aisle' is not pronounced. > > If some non-native speaker says like this, "You can find it over > there, on /aisl/ 7.", is it terribly wrong? Pretty much. It might not even be understood.  SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take |something and not pay for it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Thank you. > > You know the word, 'aisle'. > > That souds like /ail/. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ In our last episode, <1162517291.345483.174050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented yagatino@gmail.com broadcast on alt.usage.english: > You know the word, 'aisle'. > That souds like /ail/. > The 's' in 'aisle' is not pronounced. > If some non-native speaker says like this, "You can find it over there, > on /aisl/ 7.", is it terribly wrong? It is likely not to be understood. There is some variation in the way some native speakers treat some of the supposedly silent letters. For example, some people do try to pronounce the l in salmon. Many native speakers are used to this kind of variation and so can understand speakers who exhibit it. Pronouncing the s in aisle, on the other hand, is simply not a variation or error found among native speakers, so mative speakers are unlikely to understand it. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner> Health food may be good for the conscience but Oreos taste a hell of a lot better. --Robert Redford > You know the word, 'aisle'. > That souds like /ail/. > The 's' in 'aisle' is not pronounced. > > If some non-native speaker says like this, "You can find it over there, > on /aisl/ 7.", is it terribly wrong? 1. Yes, this is an error. 2. This also exemplifies a pattern differentiating American from British speech habits. It seems fairly common for Americans to sound letters in a word's spelling (e.g. L in ALMOND, the second O in LABORATORY) that British speakers always omit, as here S in AISLE. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > > You know the word, 'aisle'. > > That souds like /ail/. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > O in LABORATORY) that British speakers always > omit, as here S in AISLE. Some silent letters are there in English words because they used to be pronounced - and sometimes still are pronounced in various dialects or versions of English. For me as an Englishman, the "h" in "what" and the "r" in "word" are silent. However; most Scots do still pronounce them. I've also noticed the phenomenon of people pronouncing words phonetically, as they are spelt. For instance, I always pronounce the "t" in "often", but my father does not. Now I find that here in London young people are pronouncing "worry" as if it rhymed with "sorry", when it should rhyme with "hurry". However, if our English spelling is causing language change, we only have ourselves to blame, so I don't "wurry" about it. It would be interesting if our English spelling were to induce such language change that all our existing spellings ended up phonetic! As for Americans pronouncing all the letters in words, I'm noticing that the younger generation in England are stressing words of four syllables with the stress on the second syllable, e.g. "priMARily" (I am 49 and say "PRIM'rily") and "manDATory" and "inVENtory (I say "MANdat'ry" and "INvent'ry"). I don't know whether this is an American influence, but it has the result that these younger people pronounce the full four syllables (and hence all the letters), whereas I only pronounce three syllables and omit the second last vowel (I'm regarding "y" as the final vowel here, as it's certainly sounded as a vowel in these words). Language change in action. Who knows, Brits and Americans may one day end up speaking the same language! Baboon. >> > You know the word, 'aisle'. >> > That souds like /ail/. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > versions of English. For me as an Englishman, the "h" in "what" and the "r" > in "word" are silent. However; most Scots do still pronounce them. A few "silent" letters are expressed in other forms of a word: n is silent in damn but pronounced in damnation. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner> "Writing is an adventure. To begin with, it is a toy and an amusement. Then it becomes a mistress, then it becomes a master, then it becomes a tyrant. The last phase is that just as you are about to be reconciled to your servitude, you kill the monster and fling him to the public." -- Winston Churchill > >> > You know the word, 'aisle'. > >> > That souds like /ail/. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > A few "silent" letters are expressed in other forms of a word: > n is silent in damn but pronounced in damnation. That's an important point, and one to be borne in mind by the spelling reformers whose suggestions I am currently looking at. ("Whose", "who" - I've never understood why there is an "h" in those words. Surely it's not possible to pronounce it, as you can in "what", "which", etc. I'm surely the Scots don't pronounce "who" any differently from the English). > "Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote in message > > A few "silent" letters are expressed in other forms of a word: > > n is silent in damn but pronounced in damnation. > That's an important point, and one to be borne in mind by the spelling > reformers whose suggestions I am currently looking at. ("Whose", "who" - > I've never understood why there is an "h" in those words. Surely it's not > possible to pronounce it, as you can in "what", "which", etc. I'm surely the > Scots don't pronounce "who" any differently from the English). Um, you meant to say "why there is a w", not "h", right? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >>"Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Um, you meant to say "why there is a w", not "h", right? You beat me to it. It's interesting looking at our cousin languages. It's almost as if someone put the question words into a bag and drew them out at random. Compare German "wer", which doesn't mean "where", but "who"; or Dutch "hoe", which doesn't mean "who", but "how". SignatureRob Bannister > > "Lars Eighner" <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Um, you meant to say "why there is a w", not "h", right? Yes, I confused myself. I know the Scots pronounce "what" as "hwot" and "where" as "hwer", so I was thinking, (re. "who") another "wh" word, but this time it's impossible (I do believe) to pronounce it as "hwoo". Perhaps we should spell it "hoo". Baboon. > That's an important point, and one to be borne in mind by the spelling > reformers whose suggestions I am currently looking at. ("Whose", "who" - > I've never understood why there is an "h" in those words. Surely it's not > possible to pronounce it, as you can in "what", "which", etc. I'm surely the > Scots don't pronounce "who" any differently from the English). Surely you mean it's impossible to pronounce the "w" in "who", "whose"? SignatureRob Bannister > ("Whose", "who" - > I've never understood why there is an "h" in those words. Surely it's not > possible to pronounce it, as you can in "what", "which", etc. I'm surely the > Scots don't pronounce "who" any differently from the English). The question is why there is a w in who. "Who" is not hoe, woe, woo, but hoo. Both the h and the w are pronounced in what and which, but in the reverse of the order in which they are written. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> <http://myspace.com/larseighner> "If writers were good businessmen, they'd have too much sense to be writers." --Irvin S. Cobb >>("Whose", "who" - >>I've never understood why there is an "h" in those words. Surely it's not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Both the h and the w are pronounced in what and which, but in > the reverse of the order in which they are written. And when you look at other languages, you see "qu" and "kv" and wonder exactly what is going on. SignatureRob Bannister |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.