The answer to your question depends to a large extent on whether you are using IPA to represent a phonemic transcription of the word, or a phonetic transcription.
In either case, your option (a) is absolutely not correct. IPA /t͡ʃeɪd/ (or /t͡ʃɛɪd/, depending on how you choose to transcribe diphthongs) would as regularly as possibly be represented ...
Sure! You can just use this tool
It works by translating ipa to sampa with lexconvert and than playing it with meSpeak.js, that is a js clone of espeak.
One is the Standard British English pronunciation, and the other is the General American English pronunciation.
In the British pronunciation, you don't pronounce the /r/ after /ə/ unless the next word starts with a vowel. (The superscript /r/ is saying add an /r/ after it if the next word starts with a vowel. Compare the words store /stɔːʳ/ and star /stɑːʳ/...
In most varieties of General American these words use the same phoneme, /æ/.
However the /æ/ in sag and the /æ/ in slant are different. The /æ/ in slant will be nasalised. It will also be shorter than the /æ/ in sag.
In General American both these words use the vowel /æ/. [Some other varieties of English use different vowels in ...
Since your desired pronunciation is the emphatic pronunciation of "the", you could simply emphasize it by italicizing it, for example.
I want to give you the best customer experience possible.
Most readers would pronounce it as "thee" in this case.
You should use neither of those for the phonemic representation of human. You should use the standard IPA, which is /ˈhjumən/.
So that vowel is /u/, or with the leading glide, /ju/. Sometimes the vowel is phonetically transliterated to [uː] but vowel length is not phonemic, at least in American dialects of English.
I don't know, but here's an interesting quote from Abercrombie's book Fifty years in Phonetics.
In America phonetic notation has had a curious history. Bloomfield
used IPA notation in his early book An Introduction to the Study
of Language, 1914, and in the English edition of his more famous
Language, 1935. But since then, a strange hostility ...
Look at the spelling pronunciation key for dictionary.com. This tells you what all these strange spellings mean.
Dictionary.com uses a non-standard phonetic respelling. You can also get the IPA (international phonetic alphabet) pronunciation by clicking the IPA/Spell button.
The range of sounds denoted by the symbols of the IPA are defined by the International Phonetic Association. Consider the T sound: it is pronounced differently in tick (aspirated as [tʰ]), stick (unaspirated as [t]), latter (flapped as [ɾ]), and pat (unreleased as [t̚]). The IPA is an International Phonetic Alphabet, which means it has different symbols for ...
On /phonemic/ vs [phonetic] Transcriptions
What’s going on here is that some dictionaries are sometimes using detailed phonetics yet placing them within the slashes that should be used only for phonemic transcriptions, not for phonetic ones.
Remember that everything in slashes always represents a range of possible phonetic allophones that can vary without ...
In many dialects of English, the vowel /ʌ/ is typically altered when it is followed by an /l/. In some dialects of American English, the word color is usually an exception to this rule (probably because col is not a root word), and if you listen you can hear that color and duller sound different, even though they are phonemically /kʌlər/ and /dʌlər/.
The superscript schwa in the transcriptions given in good dictionaries indicates that a schwa is possible in such words. It doesn't indicate that it will always be there when spoken by a native speaker. It does not represent a small schwa either, it's a possible schwa.
Whenever there is the possibility of a syllabic consonant in English (usually /l,n,m, r/)...
This is a very helpful question. Many members here are unsure about what the superscript schwa indicates in dictionaries, and there is a lot of inaccurate information given about it.
The superscript schwa indicates that there are two different pronunciations in common use. One uses a schwa here the other doesn't. So the American version of antonym can be ...
In many speakers in the Midwest and West (particularly the Upper Midwest and the Pacific Northwest), the vowel /æ/ in sag, slag, bag, tag, and so on, is diphthongized1. It can be the same as the /eɪ/ in vague, or it can be pronounced similarly to the way Australians pronounce mate /mæɪt/. See this dialect blog entry.
1It is also diphthongized in sang, ...
Absolutely not. Pronunciation never determines spelling in English. Spelling has its own ancient history, one far removed from any attempt to encode pronunciation.
There are all schwas:
In the case of the two most commonly misspelled words in the English ...
There's a limited one available online, if you happen to have an Alexa Developer account.
Create an Alexa Skills Kit account.
Create a skill and fill out whatever fields you need to to enable the Testing tab (this isn't going to be easy).
Navigate into your skill by choosing your skill from https://developer.amazon.com/edw/home.html
Now that you are on the ...
The schwa is written as ə in the International Phonetic Alphabet. Some linguists, however, assert that there is no schwa before the l sound in English words like fossil, possible, etc. Others are of the opposite opinion, whence the discrepancy you observed.
As one word: both [ˈʌɪ̯ɻəʃmn̩]
Yes, they really are homophones — but only when said as compound words rather than as two separate words in succession. As compound words, the American pronunciation of Irishman and Irishmen alike is usually just [ˈʌɪ̯ɻəʃmn̩] in connected speech, no matter whether singular or plural. Only the stressed syllable has a ...
It's just an alternative transcription for the same phoneme that you and Wiktionary transcribe as /aɪ/ (the vowel found in the words "price" and "size"). Oxford Dictionaries' transcriptions do not use the symbol aɪ, so there is no contrast between ʌɪ and aɪ. The use of ʌɪ in this context is unrelated to "Canadian raising".
Oxford consulted the linguist ...
Pronunciation respelling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_respelling
A pronunciation respelling is a regular phonetic respelling of a word that does have a standard spelling, so as to indicate the pronunciation. Pronunciation respellings are sometimes seen in dictionaries.
Specifically, your example is a non-phonemic pronunciation system. (...
An /ɝ/ is just the stressed version of an /ɚ/. For example, murder has both of them in it, being normally written as /ˈmɝdɚ/. Both of those are “r-colored” vowels. However, some transcribers prefer to represent that as /ˈmɜɹdəɹ/ instead, writing a consonant instead of little rhotic hook. Those represent the same pronunciation.
Your mother is therefore ...
In purely phonetic terms, it is most definitely not an [e]. Few dialects of English have a true [e] (some have [eː], but that’s a different sound).
The ‘long a’ diphthong can be variously transcribed as [ɛɪ], [ɛi], [eɪ], or occasionally [ei], depending on how broad the phonetic transcription is, what dialect is being transcribed, and a host of other factors....
I haven't done this myself, but I think it should be possible: first convert from IPA to SAMPA using Phonverter - a converter between IPA and SAMPA transcriptions then use MBROLA to pronounce the SAMPA.
An alternative is to use lexconvert (Wayback) to do the conversion and feed the output to espeak.
Dutch /u/ is not necessarily the same as English /u/.
I think you may be confusing the concepts of "phoneme" (which corresponds to the adjective "phonemic") and "phone" (which corresponds to the adjective "phonetic").
A phonetic transcription, using square brackets, represents a specific physical sound. When comparing sounds from different languages, you ...
The strong forms of the words can and that both have the TRAP vowel in RP. This is the same vowel as in the word cat /kæt/. These forms of the words are shown in examples (1) and (3) repsectively. The auxiliary verb can is usually only strong when stressed or when stranded (ie when not followed by another verb).
The subordinator that and ...
I think most people would consider the pronunciation /pəˈrɪfriəl/ "puh-RIF-ri-al" for peripheral nonstandard, for several reasons. Like you, I was unable to find any dictionary that lists it, or any other evidence that it is used by people other than you. It also doesn't match up with the spelling.
The ending -eral is normally pronounced as /ərəl/ or /rəl/)....
When most people speak, I hear the same vowel in pink and pit. There are definitely some people from California who say peenk and keeng. And from the links you give, some people from Michigan do the same thing. For these speakers, the phoneme /ɪ/ changes to /iː/ before /ŋ/. This really isn't a problem for comprehension, because /iːŋ/ isn't present in any ...
It's because of stress patterns.
Antinomy (an-TI-no-my) is stressed on the second syllable alone, so the other three syllables have reduced vowels. The syllable immediately following the stress is apt to get swallowed when you have two unstressed syllables following as you have here.
Antimony (AN-ti-MO-ny) is stressed on both the first and third syllables,...
The short answer is no. In English, the phones [ɪ] and [i] are not just allophones of a single phoneme.
There are many minimal pairs like "bit-beat", "shit-sheet", "bitch-beach" that establish that [ɪ] and [i] (in a usual English accent) are not always allophones of the same phoneme. To account for the contrasts between these words, we need to define at ...