Hot answers tagged

26

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 ...


20

Sure! You can just use this tool https://itinerarium.github.io/phoneme-synthesis/ It works by translating ipa to sampa with lexconvert and than playing it with meSpeak.js, that is a js clone of espeak.


20

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/...


18

I guess here's what you're looking for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_respelling_for_English It seems that Google Translate uses NOAD.


16

Short answer 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. Full answer In General American both these words use the vowel /æ/. [Some other varieties of English use different vowels in ...


9

The sounds of /ʌ/ and /ʊ/ are only moderately similar from a strictly phonetic point of view. However, in the context of phonology, you might feel like the difference is "[so] minor that you could probably swap each sound when speaking and get away with it" for a couple of reasons: the contrast has a low "functional load": in standard English, /ʊ/ is a rare ...


8

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.


8

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.


7

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 ...


7

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 ...


7

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/. In ...


6

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/)...


6

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 ...


6

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, ...


6

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: Alan mountain kitten cetacean foreign satin atomician motion lemon autumn Eryn rhythm acre little In the case of the two most commonly misspelled words in the English ...


5

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.


5

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 ...


5

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 ...


5

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 ...


5

As Hot Licks said in a comment, and Peter Shor said in his answer, the pronunciation of a vowel may be altered by the surrounding sounds. But not all phonetically distinguishable vowel sounds are considered to be distinct "phonemes" of a language. When the difference in pronunciation is predictable from the context, a pair of vowel phones may be considered ...


5

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 ...


5

/ʌ/ cut, hut, bun, nothing, love, enough, flood, does /ʊ/ put, soot, foot, good, look, cook /ʌ/ sound is very similar to /ə/ sound (schwa). The only difference is that /ʌ/ occurs in syllables that are stressed while /ə/ occurs in syllables that are unstressed. /ʌ/ is called Open-mid back unrounded vowel. In order to produce /ʌ/ sound, slightly open your ...


4

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. (...


4

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....


4

I did some investigation and I have determined that the dictionary entries returned by the Google define: operator are from the New Oxford American Dictionary, including the pronunciation symbols. The OxfordDictionaries.com site has a complete key to these pronunciations. To determine this, I started the Wikipedia article that compares many of these "...


4

People who say IPA system does not work are just liars. This is not true. I have been teaching English as a Foreign Language for more than 40 years and the improvements in pronunciation are just amazing from the first basic lesson. What English students need are real tools to help them learn by themselves. The International Phonetic Alphabet works and it is ...


4

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 (mirror) to do the conversion and feed the output to espeak.


4

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 ...


4

kæn kən ðæt ðət 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 ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible