# Went on (Pronunciation)



## Ivan Ariel

Hi everybody, i guess it's not the proper place to put a question concerning pronunciation, but i couldn't find any other reliable site to ask it.
My doubt goes directly to american speakers due to their way of pronouncing the /t/ sound. Is it posible to avoid uttering the 't' in the following instance?

'We *went on *doing the same thing' (Does it really sound as /wenon/? )

Thanks a million.


----------



## Peterdg

Dropping the "t" completely in that sentence is certainly not a generalized phenomenon in America. It all depends on the region, the person, the speed of speech, the degree of formality etc. Every region has its peculiarities in pronunciation.

My advice to you: don't drop the "t" if its not your native way of speaking.


----------



## k-in-sc

Does it really sound *like* /wenon/?
Yes, it can. The "t" may just be a faint glottal stop.
Talk like a newscaster and you'll be fine.


----------



## Ivan Ariel

Thanks for your answers! Like a newscaster? You mean to imitate one? That would be rather funny, i guess


----------



## k-in-sc

No, I mean their pronunciation is neutral, in the U.S. anyway.


----------



## Ivan Ariel

Ok, do you have any link on YouTube of an american newscaster to recommend to me?

I'd be eternally grateful to watch one


----------



## Peterdg

Go to e.g. the CNN website. We can't post links from youtube.


----------



## Ivan Ariel

Fine! Thank's a million! I will check it as son as possible!


----------



## k-in-sc

Or radio: http://www.npr.org/


----------



## Cenzontle

I think "went on" in the fast speech of *most *speakers of American English could very easily sound like [wɛnɔn].  
If you know about "flapping" in American English, you are aware that the /t/ could be realized as a flap, much like the Spanish /r/.
In the "economy" of pronunciation, then, the /n/ could be represented just by a nasalization of the preceding vowel.


----------



## Sprache

Cenzontle said:


> I think "went on" in the fast speech of *most *speakers of American English could very easily sound like [wɛnɔn].
> If you know about "flapping" in American English, you are aware that the /t/ could be realized as a flap, much like the Spanish /r/.
> In the "economy" of pronunciation, then, the /n/ could be represented just by a nasalization of the preceding vowel.


Indeed. In fast casual speech, many Americans will further reduce the segment [nt] to a nasalized flap [ɾ̃], so that _went on_ is pronounced /wɛɾ̃ɔn/.


----------



## k-in-sc

It's important to remember that the sound is still represented somehow. Pronouncing it as if it doesn't have a "t" at all is incorrect.


----------



## Dan2

I think the bottom line here is that this /t/ is very weak.  Depending on speech style it might be a weak glottalized /t/, a flap following a nasalized vowel, a nasalized flap, or even, for some speakers, lost ([wɛnɑn]).  What it is NOT is the strong released /t/ of "Tom".  Better "wen-on" than "wen-ton"!


----------



## Cenzontle

I would add that (in my opinion) a learner of English should be aware of all this only for the purpose of listening comprehension,
*but* should not put effort into learning to produce it.  As you become fluent, if this treatment of /nt/ happens in your speech, don't be alarmed.
But there are more important things to learn for your pronunciation.


----------



## Pass Time

Agreed, Cenzontle, imitating what is basically a mistake is a mistake in itself. We make lots of lazy mistakes at times in casual speech, such as like saying "da" in place of "the" and "inta" in place of "into" but its far better to learn the proper way. There are whole groups of people who pronounce "door" so it rhymes with "go" but I certainly would not advise anyone to imitate that habit. Bad habits like that just make the person sound uneducated.


----------



## duvija

Pass Time said:


> Agreed, Cenzontle, imitating what is basically a mistake is a mistake in itself. We make lots of lazy mistakes at times in casual speech, such as like saying "da" in place of "the" and "inta" in place of "into" but its far better to learn the proper way. There are whole groups of people who pronounce "door" so it rhymes with "go" but I certainly would not advise anyone to imitate that habit. Bad habits like that just make the person sound uneducated.



Slow down! it's not 'basically a mistake'. It's fast speech, of the kind you find in absolutely every language in the world.


----------



## Ivan Ariel

Thanks for all your contributions. Just to be a Little more inquisitive, do you, american natve speakers, consider this kind of 'every-day mistake' uneducated? It seems pretty natural to my ears, but your opinion is far more constructive to answer my question.


----------



## Pass Time

"went on" or "wen on" will sound nearly exactly the same. I would not consider it a sign of little education, most would not. However, pronouncing the 't' is clearly correct and sounds (to me) a tiny bit more careful. 

Where do you draw the line? "wanna" is said many times in place of "want to" or "want a". The difference is more easily heard. In spoken english it will get by but if written that way it looks bad. Then we have "gunna" for 'going to'. This is how correct speech slides into dialect and does sound a bit uneducated.

I would still tell people to pronounce the 't' and enunciate every word correctly. Slurring some words when you speak more rapidly will happen but lets not start out learning how to slur.


----------



## duvija

I agree with the 'no slurring' recommendation for a foreign speaker, but let me tell you a secret: the disappearance of that [t] follows a rigorous rule in the Am.Eng. spoken language:
" A [t] disappears when the previous syllable is stressed and ends in [n], and the following sound is a vowel." (all must apply)
I know many people may believe this is b.s. but check the whole language. It's a 'rule' (meaning, not a law, but that's the context where it happens. And it's not obligatory, of course).
 Think about 'Toronto, Sacramento' or any other similar word in fast speech. Compare 'Toronto' with "Ontario/anterior". Check the stress.
Now compare "enter" [éner] vs. "entrance" [éntrans], where the 'r' in the cluster 'tr' doesn't allow the [t] to go away even if the stress falls on the necessary syllable.
Was I able to explain it clearly? when most speakers follow a 'rule' like this, it doesn't sound uneducated or even sloppy.


----------



## Ivan Ariel

VERY clear, Duvija. Indeed, it happens to me, to produce certain slurings by force when Reading or in a rapid speech.

Thanks to you all!


----------



## Pass Time

Granted that in speech some slurring does occur probably in all languages. But to call it a "rule" gives it the appearance of something one must do which is clearly not the case. I make my share of verbal sins and at times even adopt an accent or dialect for purposes of humor or other reasons. 

There are many people here who habitually drop the 'r' at the end of words. "door" sounds like dough, "floor" sounds like "flow" and so on. Since many do it shall we call it a rule? What about "wanna" as in "wannabe" which I've seen in writing?

I suppose each generation thinks the younger generation is going to the dogs but the only alternative to strictly following guidelines is to have dozens of dialects spring up fragmenting the original tongue into new corrupted languages. This has invariably happened in the past or we would mostly all be speaking latin or greek now. Yes, I know about chinese and other languages which apparently have no such roots but I'm speaking for the most part.


----------



## duvija

Pass Time said:


> Granted that in speech some slurring does occur probably in all languages. But to call it a "rule" gives it the appearance of something one must do which is clearly not the case. I make my share of verbal sins and at times even adopt an accent or dialect for purposes of humor or other reasons.
> 
> There are many people here who habitually drop the 'r' at the end of words. "door" sounds like dough, "floor" sounds like "flow" and so on. Since many do it shall we call it a rule? What about "wanna" as in "wannabe" which I've seen in writing?
> 
> I suppose each generation thinks the younger generation is going to the dogs but the only alternative to strictly following guidelines is to have dozens of dialects spring up fragmenting the original tongue into new corrupted languages. This has invariably happened in the past or we would mostly all be speaking latin or greek now. Yes, I know about chinese and other languages which apparently have no such roots but I'm speaking for the most part.



Don't despise regional variation. It happens in every language. 
What happened to Latin was totally normal. And the new resulting languages were not exactly 'corrupt'. We should be less strict and more pragmatic. Language is a very interesting theme to follow. You learn a lot about the workings of the human brain.

A grammatical rule is not something invented by someone and has to be followed. The rules are the result of analyzing the way people speak. You can only formulate a rule retrospectively. Then, you may use it to teach, but knowing there is always variation. Non-native speakers need to know enough to be able to understand the language they are learning, and that's the reason for teaching what you call 'dialects'. 

(I couldn't understating what you meant by 'roots' in Chinese).


----------



## Pass Time

>(I couldn't understating what you meant by 'roots' in Chinese)

Chinese and the languages derived from it do not have latin or greek roots. The same can be said for native american languages and those of some other areas.

>A grammatical rule is not something invented by someone and has to be followed. The rules are the result of analyzing the way people speak.

Yes, but after its enunciated then the implication is that people should follow it. I know what you are saying, basically that language evolves. I have said that many times myself in other contexts. My point being that there is a fine line between "corruption" of a language and gradual evolution. If no one followed the norms then the language would evolve very fast indeed but would become incomprehensible to those from other regions.

There has to be a balance between accepting new words and new ways of speaking and staying with what is known and accepted. They say italian had fragmented into some 78 dialects by the 40's and many people had a hard time understanding someone who spoke a different dialect. Mussolini instructed the schools to teach everyone standard italian and its probably a good thing he did.


----------



## duvija

Pass Time said:


> >(I couldn't understating what you meant by 'roots' in Chinese)
> 
> Chinese and the languages derived from it do not have latin or greek roots. The same can be said for native american languages and those of some other areas.
> 
> Uh, OK, I didn't understand which 'roots' you were talking about. Only Romance languages are Latin based.
> 
> >A grammatical rule is not something invented by someone and has to be followed. The rules are the result of analyzing the way people speak.
> 
> Yes, but after its enunciated then the implication is that people should follow it. I know what you are saying, basically that language evolves. I have said that many times myself in other contexts. My point being that there is a fine line between "corruption" of a language and gradual evolution. If no one followed the norms then the language would evolve very fast indeed but would become incomprehensible to those from other regions.
> 
> There has to be a balance between accepting new words and new ways of speaking and staying with what is known and accepted. They say italian had fragmented into some 78 dialects by the 40's and many people had a hard time understanding someone who spoke a different dialect. Mussolini instructed the schools to teach everyone standard italian and its probably a good thing he did.



I believe I understand what you're saying, except that this is not the way it really happens. You know very well you can't stop language change. You may try, of course, but knowing you'll fail. New generations, new sets of rules. (I love you using Mussolini as an example. It sounds like the RAE today... Some 'rules' the RAE wants to enforce don't agree with the workings of the human brain -example off-topic: "An adjective that precedes a list of nouns should agree with the closest one. Adjectives that follow, should be masculine if there is at least one masculine noun in the series". The brain would treat both cases the same). I gave up with enforcing rules among native speakers. This forum is a great example of doubts and variation. We learn a lot.


----------



## Pass Time

duvija, I understand what you are saying and you do have a good point. Its impossible to stop language from changing. I did not propose to stop all changes, simply to standardize it to some degree. Teaching the standard version of a language in school and having tv broadcasts in neutral accents help to bring this about. Would we really want 78 dialects in italian and no standard version?


----------



## Cenzontle

> Was I able to explain it clearly?


A resounding Yes, duvija! Thank you!
Below are some more [stressed vowel] + n + t + [vowel] words, gleaned from the COCA.
Am.Eng.-speakers:  Listen for them *in the (fast) speech of others *(not in your own speech—you are now too sensitized), and see if you hear a /t/.


> wa*nt*ed, i*nt*ernational (etc.), ide*nt*ity, Atla*nt*a, i*nt*ernet, wi*nt*er, adva*nt*age, poi*nt*ed, perce*nt*age, Sa*nt*a Claus (Sa*nt*a Fe, Sa*nt*a Barbara...), represe*nt*ative, cou*nt*er, Pe*nt*agon, hu*nt*er, i*nt*egrated, fa*nt*asy, cou*nt*ies, pare*nt*al, i*nt*imate...


Torontonians are famous for calling their city "Trana".
I don't expect you fill find the phenomenon in 
• co*nt*act, co*nt*ext, co*nt*ent, co*nt*est, co*nt*our
(maybe because there's secondary stress on the second syllable).
It also seems unlikely in 
• mou*nt*ain, mai*nt*enance, Cli*nt*on, Sta*nt*on, Be*nt*on (instead, you may hear the /t/ as a glottal stop).
(It's not just because so many of these are proper names: the /t/ may flap in "Vale*nt*i" or "Cleme*nt*i".)
Pardon me if this is more detail than you wanted. Lots to think about here.


----------



## MarcB

My two cents, when I hear a speaker occasionally pronounce words in reduction it is normal, if they do it too often or always it sounds uneducated, regardless of the persons actual level of education.


----------



## Pass Time

MarcB said:


> My two cents, when I hear a speaker occasionally pronounce words in reduction it is normal, if they do it too often or always it sounds uneducated, regardless of the persons actual level of education.



Agreed!


----------



## duvija

Pass Time said:


> duvija, I understand what you are saying and you do have a good point. Its impossible to stop language from changing. I did not propose to stop all changes, simply to standardize it to some degree. Teaching the standard version of a language in school and having tv broadcasts in neutral accents help to bring this about. Would we really want 78 dialects in italian and no standard version?



You're right and I have no answer for this. But... do we want a 'standard' that nobody uses? (I know a language with one -Yiddish- and it sounds perfectly ridiculous).


----------



## duvija

Cenzontle said:


> A resounding Yes, duvija! Thank you!
> Below are some more [stressed vowel] + n + t + [vowel] words, gleaned from the COCA.
> Am.Eng.-speakers:  Listen for them *in the (fast) speech of others *(not in your own speech—you are now too sensitized), and see if you hear a /t/.
> 
> 
> It also seems unlikely in
> • mou*nt*ain, mai*nt*enance, Cli*nt*on, Sta*nt*on, Be*nt*on (instead, you may hear the /t/ as a glottal stop).
> (It's not just because so many of these are proper names: the /t/ may flap in "Vale*nt*i" or "Cleme*nt*i".)



Great examples. My theory with 'mountain/maintenance' was that the preceding diphthong has some influence, but I don't have any good reason for claiming this. With the last names, well, they are last names... They probably have a choice (Reagan decided he was [regan] and not [rigan]). 
I've heard 'Benton Harbor' as [bénon], used by locals.


----------



## Pass Time

The standard of course must be changed from time to time to reflect current usage. However, fads and current slang which come and go need not be included in the standard. If a word or expression or way of speaking passes the test of time then it should be recognized.

My other point is that its good to point out when something is tolerated but not correct so that people learning the language do not think they need to imitate slurs and non standard dialect. Explain that the 't' often is muffled, some say it becomes a 'flap' or sounds like a 'd' or  something or is blurred into another letter and not clearly pronounced at all.

I'm in favor of the rules following usage but when slang and dialect comes and go, that is something else. Perhaps there should be recognition for "fast speech" and the common errors that arise which since they are so common are becoming accepted. But in written form we do not use "fast speech"


----------



## duvija

The problem is when we teach, we have to take into account 'understanding speech', vs. 'speaking'. Non-natives should be able to understand, therefore we have to make sure they know when there is deletion, or any other form of switching phonemes. I agree they shouldn't be encouraged to use it, unless they are at a decent level of proficiency. "Spelling pronunciations" are not that great (the kind that makes people say [often] when for centuries it has been [ofen]).


----------



## Cenzontle

duvija said:


> My theory with 'mountain/maintenance' was that the preceding diphthong has some influence, but I don't have any good reason for claiming this.


I agree, you do not have any good reason for blaming the diphthong:  look at "counter", "pointed", "counties".


duvija said:


> With the last names, well, they are last names... They probably have a choice (Reagan decided he was [regan] and not [rigan]).
> I've heard 'Benton Harbor' as [bénon], used by locals.


I also beg to differ about the last names:  I don't hear "Clinnon" as an option for "Clinton"; but I can easily imagine "Clemenni" for "Clementi".
I want to maintain that it's the syllabic /n/ that prevents flapping in "Clinton", "maintenance", etc.
I don't know what to make of [bénon] Harbor.  Maybe those speakers are cut from the same cloth as those Washington insiders who call their city "Wash@n@n" (@ for schwa).


----------



## Cenzontle

The title of this thread is "went on", and—as you can see—it went on and on and on.
I couldn't account for flapping in "[bénon] Harbor", above.
Another word that I can't account for is "sentence", in some (southern U.S.) varieties of English in which this word sounds like "sinnitz" (including among highly educated speakers).  
I myself would not flap the /nt/, I think because of the following syllabic /n/.  Instead, you would hear my /t/ as a glottal stop, or, in careful speech, as a [t].  
I can only guess that the "sinnitz" speaker has denasalized the second syllable; thus there is no syllabic /n/; thus there is nothing to prevent the flapping of /nt/.


----------



## duvija

Cenzontle said:


> The title of this thread is "went on", and—as you can see—it went on and on and on.
> I couldn't account for flapping in "[bénon] Harbor", above.
> Another word that I can't account for is "sentence", in some (southern U.S.) varieties of English in which this word sounds like "sinnitz" (including among highly educated speakers).
> I myself would not flap the /nt/, I think because of the following syllabic /n/.  Instead, you would hear my /t/ as a glottal stop, or, in careful speech, as a [t].
> I can only guess that the "sinnitz" speaker has denasalized the second syllable; thus there is no syllabic /n/; thus there is nothing to prevent the flapping of /nt/.



I've heard [sénets] so often, it doesn't even trigger a question. Chicago likes to get rid of as many 't' as it can.

(Cenzontle: Where in the US are you from?)


----------

