# Thirty, fifty, eighty (Pronunciación números)



## Pinutera

Hola, como están?, tengo una duda....resulta que escuchando la pronunciación en inglés americano las terminaciones de los números cambian un poco, por ejemplo six*ty* ese "ty" del final suena a "ti" en castellano pero por qué en thirty suena como "ri" suena como a "ze*ri*" y no "zer*ti*" lo mismo que fif*ty* ese "ty" suena clarito a ti pero en eigh*ty* ese ty suena a "ri" eighri.

Por qué?, hay alguna regla de pronunciación?, cómo hago para darme cuenta si es "ri" o "ti"?

Gracias!


----------



## Tazzler

Hola. Se debe a que en inglés americano cuando "t" aparece entre dos vocales tiende a pronunciarse más o menos como la ere en español (no la erre). En inglés a este sonido se le llama "alveolar flap". En los números "thirty" y "eighty" la "t" aparece (fonéticamente, no ortográficamente) entre dos vocales (la "r" en "thirty" no es una verdadera consonante). Fíjate en que al hablar lentamente o con cuidado la "t" suele salir como siempre.


----------



## Pinutera

Perdón, no entendí nada. En eighty ni "h" ni "y" son vocales. Gracias por tu tiempo.


----------



## Tazzler

Como dije, no importa la ortografía; lo que importa es el valor fonético que una letra representa, o, en términos menos rebuscados, como se pronuncia. "ei" y "y" representan vocales. "gh" es mudo (la ortografía inglesa está llena de letras que no contribuyen a la pronunciación de la palabra que las contiene; muchos han propuesto cambios radicales para deshacerse de ellas, pero no han logrado que se establezcan....).


----------



## Pinutera

Gracias, pero no sé qué hacer para darme cuenta cuando es ri o ti, ¿me los aprendo de memoria del twenty al ninety? aunque la verdad me gustaría entender por qué, para cuando aparezca otra palabra pueda pronunciarla bien, porque siempre me pasa que las palabras nunca se pronuncian como yo creo, y termino aprendiendo de memoria su pronunciación, es como que no entiendo bien las reglas, hay muchas excepciones, me gustaría saber como hacen para aprenderlas o para enseñarlas los que aprenden o enseñan inglés. Yo soy autodidacta. no tengo plata para pagarme un/una profesor/a. Gracias.


----------



## k-in-sc

In "eighty," etc., the -ty sounds like -di, not -ri.

http://www.forvo.com/word/eighty/#en


----------



## Pinutera

twenty - thirty - forty - fifty - sixty -seventy - eighty -ninety

twenti  -zeri- fori - fifti - sixti -sevendi -eiri - naini

Creo que la pronunciación en inglés británico es mucho más fácil. Pero, yo necesito aprender americano.


----------



## Pinutera

k-in-sc said:


> In "eighty," etc., the -ty sounds like -di, not -ri.
> 
> http://www.forvo.com/word/eighty/#en



Perdón yo estoy hablando así como si hablara español, porque no me sé muy bien la pronunciación internacional, la estoy aprendiendo. Y ese ty del final no suena como di en español, sino como ri. 

*Ah, ahí en forvo la escucho como di, pero que raro en wordreference se escucha como ri y en google también.
* compará el seventy de wordreference el di está clarito al final, pero en eighty suena a eiri.


----------



## Tazzler

Pinutera said:


> Gracias, pero no sé qué hacer para darme cuenta cuando es ri o ti, ¿me los aprendo de memoria del twenty al ninety? aunque la verdad me gustaría entender por qué, para cuando aparezca otra palabra pueda pronunciarla bien, porque siempre me pasa que las palabras nunca se pronuncian como yo creo, y termino aprendiendo de memoria su pronunciación, es como que no entiendo bien las reglas, hay muchas excepciones, me gustaría saber como hacen para aprenderlas o para enseñarlas los que aprenden o enseñan inglés. Yo soy autodidacta. no tengo plata para pagarme un/una profesor/a. Gracias.



Es simplemente un fenómeno de la pronunciación estadounidense. Cuando “te’ aparece entre dos vocales suele saler como la ere en español, no como una “t“ pura (ni como una “d“ pura). Si te cuesta recordar esta regla a la hora de hablar, podrías sólo usar el sonido puro. Quizás suene extraño, pero no hay peligro de que no se te entienda. Además, no sé si todos los estadounidenses aplican esta regla a su pronunciación. Sé que está muy extendida, pero esto no significa que todos hablen así.


----------



## Pinutera

Tazzler said:


> Es simplemente un fenómeno de la pronunciación estadounidense. Cuando “te’ aparece entre dos vocales suele saler como la ere en español, no como una “t“ pura (ni como una “d“ pura). Si te cuesta recordar esta regla a la hora de hablar, podrías sólo usar el sonido puro. Quizás suene extraño, pero no hay peligro de que no se te entienda. Además, no sé si todos los estadounidenses aplican esta regla a su pronunciación. Sé que está muy extendida, pero esto no significa que todos hablen así.



Gracias, si pensé en eso, en hablar británico, porque es mucho más fácil para mí, pero me gustaría aprender americano, porque necesito comunicarme en este acento, y no sólo que me resulta más fácil decir, sino también quiero entender que me dicen.


----------



## Pinutera

respecto a la "d", noté que la pronuncian muy parecida o igual a la r en español también, un amigo estadounidense cuando quiere decir sábado dice sábaro, por ejemplo, en esta pronunciación de needed la de australia dice la "d" nided pero la de Estados Unidos dice nired. http://es.forvo.com/word/needed/#en


----------



## _SantiWR_

k-in-sc said:


> In "eighty," etc., the -ty sounds like -di, not -ri.
> 
> http://www.forvo.com/word/eighty/#en



I think what                                                                                      *Tazzler* meant to say is that the alveolar flap is closer to the Spanish r than to the Spanish d or t. In fact he said it quite clearly I reckon


----------



## aprendiendo argento

It is important to voice the *T* in _seventy _since in fast speech Americans might interpret/hear your _seven[t]y_ as *seventeen*.
It's what  _Lisa Mojsin_ (the author of ''Mastering the American accent'') said.

The exact value of this voiced T is not really a Spanish intervocalic R. The articulatory analyses showed it's halfway between the Spanish intervocalic R, as in _amo*r*oso_, and the initial Spanish d, as in _*d*iente_.
There should be no vibration in production (Spanish intervocalic R has one single vibration).
(And especially before -ER, a [d]-like sound is easier to pronounce than an [ɾ]-like sound: butter ([ˈbʌdɚ] vs [bʌɾɚ]).

But, the most important thing is the voicing.

I hear it like a [d] in these American samples (#2 and #3), [_seve*nt*y _like Spanish _Mé*nd*ez, sie*nd*o]_; _I've never heard it with a Spanish r; especially in the #2 it sounds like 7D:_
http://www.forvo.com/word/seventy/#en


----------



## Pinutera

^si, cualquier hablante de español te diría que dice sevendi y no seventy.

Así me quedaron en mi pronunciación trucha: (yo sé que hay que hablar además con ese acento yanki y no como si estuvieras leyendo español)

twenti -zeeri- fori - fifti - sixti -sevendi -eidi - naini


----------



## k-in-sc

"Seventy" is distinguished from "seventeen" by the emphasis: *sev*enty vs. seven*teen*. If someone misunderstands you and you need to clarify, you don't stress the T, which "seventeen" also has, you stress the first syllable more: "No, SEVenty, not sevenTEEN."
I don't know where you're getting the "r" sound. It needs to be harder than that. You're going to sound like you're drunk


----------



## AquisM

¡Qué interesante que no ha participado ningún hablante de inglés británico en esta discusión! Bueno, creo que la d intervocálica en inglés americano es muy similar a la ere en español, pero se representa mejor con algo entre la t, la ere y la d en español. Intenta hacer la vibración de la lengua de la ere en la posición de la t española. O si es demasiado difícil, pronúnciala en la forma británica. Estoy seguro de que los americanos te entenderán, aunque odien la pronunciación.


----------



## chileno

éiri = 80 - séveni = 70 esa es la pronunciación "rápida" que tiene el americano. 

Así, cuando un americano tratar de decir en castellano "todos juntos" suena "toros juntos"


----------



## Pinutera

k-in-sc said:


> "Seventy" is distinguished from "seventeen" by the emphasis: *sev*enty vs. seven*teen*. If someone misunderstands you and you need to clarify, you don't stress the T, which "seventeen" also has, you stress the first syllable more: "No, SEVenty, not sevenTEEN."
> I don't know where you're getting the "r" sound. It needs to be harder than that. You're going to sound like you're drunk



jaja, gracias por toda tu buena intención, pero no insistas bien sabemos en Latinoamerica que los estadounidenses pronuncian la d como r, osea tu d es nuestra r, pero toRo bien, me gusta ese cambio Re letras, Re toRos moRos se entienRe. jaja


----------



## k-in-sc

If you think they sound the same, your accent in English must be really ... interesting


----------



## robjh22

I grew up in the Deep South, so I pronounce "seventy" better than anyone: "se'm-di."  Try it: "SE-UM-DI." If the number is indeterminate but between seventy and eighty, I say:

"Se'm-dy some odd." 

I can't get anyone from the North, much less the UK, to agree with me. I don't know why.


----------



## grahamcracker

robjh22 said:


> I grew up in the Deep South, so I pronounce "seventy" better than anyone: "se'm-di."  Try it: "SE-UM-DI." If the number is indeterminate but between seventy and eighty, I say:
> 
> "Se'm-dy some odd."
> 
> I can't get anyone from the North, much less the UK, to agree with me. I don't know why.


I grew up in the North but now I live in Texas. (I was born in Georgia and spent summers there.)

There is a bit of snobbishness in the attitude of some northerners. (Having spent considerable time in the north and south, speech prejudice runs rampant ). I attribute the whole thing to a matter of dialect.


----------



## Jim2996

Hello Pinutera, fellow language leaner,

The difference that you are hearing I would describe as a /t/ "relaxing" into a /d/. With all the things going on our mouth, /d/ is easier and quicker to pronounce. There is no one right way.  /Eighti/ would always be correct, but /eighdi/ is probably more common, so it's hard to call it wrong. Different people will use different pronunciations—and I use different pronunciations at different times. I'm not sure why. I think I use /ti/ when I want some emphasis. It has nothing to do with formal or informal. Most of the time I "relax" into /di/ (unless my tongue and vocal cords are particularly "sharp" and agile).

90 is a different story. I always say /nindi/ and find /ninti/ hard and awkward to say.
20 is also different. People say /twenti/. Oddly, we also say /twen-i/ (dropping the constant). If I heard /twendi/ I would take it as a serious mispronunciation of "trendy," a sign that someone needs to see a speech therapist.
This is all from one American's point of view. British usage may be different; 

There is a clear difference between /t/ and /d/, but it happens very quick; it's very hard to catch, and if you catch it, very hard to figure out what it is. American children often have trouble, even for words like _toe_ and _doe._

/d/ is vocalized, /t/ is not. This means that you vocal cords are vibrating when you pronounce it.  If you put your fingers on your throat, you can feel this. It very clear with _that_ (vocalized) and _thin_ (not). /b/ and /p/ are another pair, try "bat" and "pat." The problem is that /d/, /t/, /b/ and /p/ all stop the airflow, and no airflow, no vibration. 

So the difference between /di/ and /ti/ is how soon the /i/ starts vibrating. With /di/ it's instantaneous, immediately; the vocal cords are tensed up and ready to go. With /ti/ there is a pause, but it can be extremely small. 

Another thing English speakers often do is aspirate their "t"s. This means that it is followed by a puff of air. If you hold your hand in front of your mouth and say "do" and "to" it's pretty obvious. This gives an extended period of non-vocalization. Most people don't know that they do this, but it's hard to miss once it's pointed out.  It's also extremely hard for English speakers not to do. Aspirated "t"s are one sign of a gringo accent. 

English speakers have no trouble pronouncing "ought" and "hot." "Hot" starts with a pure aspirated /h/; it's /h-ought/. Now, ask them to say /p-h-ought/. Again, they have no trouble; it's a common word, "pot." Now, ask them to say /p-ought/ and they can't do it; they will keep adding the /h/. Of course, with practice it can be done. 

I mention this because another choice is whether to aspirate the "t" in "eighty." An un-aspirated "t" can sound a lot like a "d." When people want to strongly emphasize the t-sound they will aspirate it. This can sound unnatural if overdone.

I hope this is not too much. Mostly, you need to listen a lot and hear the range of pronunciation that people use. There are many correct pronunciations. Please don't think that there is just one. 
I'll start paying more attention to my Spanish "r"s.

Also: The past tense in English is formed by adding "-ed." This is in writing. When spoked it is sometimes an aspirated-t. The "locked" in "The door is locked" is NOT pronounced /lock-ed/; that would be just wrong. Oddly, most native speakers don't realize they pronounce it different from the way it's written. 

Have you heard the question "Which witch is which?" Some people pronounce this as written with the "h" in one and never in the other. Some have the h in both, many in neither, some vary depending how careful they are. And, if it's present, it can be stronger/longer or weaker/shorter. Mostly, we don't notice whether/how others pronounce the "h"—or even know if we do. We just listen and talk.


----------



## grahamcracker

> Another thing English speakers often do is aspirate their "t"s. This means that it is followed by a puff of air. If you hold your hand in front of your mouth and say "do" and "to" it's pretty obvious. This gives an extended period of non-vocalization. Most people don't know that they do this, but it's hard to miss once it's pointed out. It's also extremely hard for English speakers not to do. *Aspirated "t"s are one sign of a gringo accent*.


That puff of air, while occasionally unnoticed, is a very distinct difference between Spanish and English consonants. It is also true of b's and p's.


----------



## Pinutera

Thirty - Forty con r en español
View attachment thirty_forty_r.mp3 

Thirty - Forty con d en español
View attachment thirty_forty_d.mp3

Tienen que prestar más atención a la d en español que no suene como r.

Y para los hablantes de español supongo que antes de decir ti, pronuncien un sonido más parecido a "ri".


----------



## Jim2996

Hi, I listened to your mp3s.  I assume that it is you speaking.  Others may differ—and I'd like to know if anyone does—but it clear to me:

r.mp3 is just wrong. Don't pronounce it this way. It sounds like /thir-ri/ /for-ri/. There shouldn't be a /r/ in the second syllable. The "t" needs to be a /t/ or /d/ or something in between, or an aspirated t. 

Good news: The d.mp3 is great. To me it seems 3/4 between a /t/ and a /d/ with a tilt toward /d/. It's a great pronunciation, especially if you want only one.  It's the one I use most of the time.

Some of us, some of the time, pronounce it with more of a /t/, but I think you will get this in time. 
If my Spanish is not all wrong, you can end it with Spanish word _ti._ This is the same "t" in _té _(different vowel).
Or you can end it with _tea_. This "t" is more aspirated. 
Do you say _ti_ and _tea_ differently? If you put you hand in front of your mouth the _tea_ should feel a least a slight puff of air.

I don't have a reference for you, but I remember googling "phonetics" and/or "IPA" and finding websites that show animated diagrams of how all the sounds are made. Since they use English words as examples you will get a core vocabulary that covers all the sounds. It often helps to see what is going on inside your mouth.  You might even learn all those oddball symbols, but it takes a long time.


----------



## Pinutera

Yes, it's me thanks, I will say thirty and forty like in British English, which is clear for me, but honestly I don't hear that in American English and I can't pronounce well because I ear theri and fori lol, maybe I have a problem in my ears or my tongue.


----------



## FromPA

Personally, I pronounce all of them except "twenty" as "dy", even when speaking carefully.  Thirdy, fordy, fifdy, sixdy, sevendy, eighdy, ninedy


----------



## srb62

mmmm
This is a real can of worms.  I'm not sure adding a British speaker to the mix will add anything expect more confusion - all the more so, as I'm Scottish - which means I have about three different was of pronouncing these words, depending on the situation and company!
To give a flavour, take the word "forty"
I might pronounce this with a long oh sound, no 'r' and a normal 't' - this would be standard, RP English
I might pronounce it with a very strong 'r' (like Spanish) and a fairly strong 't' - Scottish
I might pronounce it with a very strong 'r' and NO 't' - this phenomenon is called a glottal stop, where the 't' sound is replaced by a sort of aspiration/space (Very common in many words with 't' in between two vowels in Scottish - and some regions of England also)
I might even pronounce it with a flapped 'r' and a 'd' instead of a 't' - similar to USA, and perhaps used when I want to sound closer to 'standard' English, but retain a certain 'Scottishness'

The point of this?  To simply show how complex this issue is!!  My advice would be to simply pick a standard dialect you can pronounce comfortably, and go with that!


----------



## duvija

Let me add.
--The plosives (p/t/d) are aspirated (puff of air) in word initial and in stressed syllable initial. Therefore, in your numbers there is never an aspirated t, because they are all in unstressed syllables.

--For the d/t switch: if the preceding consonant is voiced, you have a [d]. If unvoiced, a [t]. (big generalization, of course)

--And then you have the swallowing of the [t] when - ok, slowly: you need a stressed syllable ending in [n] followed by an unstressed syllable starting with /t/. In those environment, you lose the [t] sound. I'll try to give some example without using the IPA.
Interest - [ínerest], 
Toronto - [Chróno]
Sacramento - [sakraméno].
And then ... you have the exceptions,  but there are always due to historic reasons.
after: [áfter] but 'often' :[ófen] - even if now many people are pronouncing the t, that didn't happen there for centuries. It's called 'spelling pronounciation' and it means 'wrong'.


----------



## grahamcracker

duvija said:


> ,
> Toronto - [Chróno]
> Sacramento - [sakraméno].
> And then ... you have the exceptions,  but there are always due to historic reasons.
> after: [áfter] but 'often' :[ófen] - even if now many people are pronouncing the t, that didn't happen there for centuries. It's called 'spelling pronounciation' and it means 'wrong'.



duvija,
You are correct, in general. And while you did not say it, I think you would agree that there are dialect variations. I assume (no IPA as you said) that you have heard the initial consonant of "Toronto" more or less similar to the "ch" in church, if that is what you meant. I don't do that nor do I know anyone (currently) who has done it. However, I could very well imagine everyone speaks it that way or nearly so in Chicago. That said, for decades my father and his brothers (from North Georgia) pronounced "Tuesday" exactly as "CHOOZ-dee". This particular variation must be spread indiscriminantly among the U.S. population because I have heard very little of it anywhere else.

Typically, I hear "Toronto' as "TRON-to".
Sacrimento as "sa-cri-MEN-ta"


----------



## duvija

grahamcracker said:


> duvija,
> "Toronto" more or less similar to the "ch" in church, if that is what you meant.
> I could very well imagine everyone speaks it that way or nearly so in Chicago.
> 
> Of course! Chicago, South side to be more precise!
> 
> That said, for decades my father and his brothers (from North Georgia) pronounced "Tuesday" exactly as "CHOOZ-dee". This particular variation must be spread indiscriminantly among the U.S. population because I have heard very little of it anywhere else.
> 
> It's more used than you think. Try to pay attention to talk shows.
> 
> Typically, I hear "Toronto' as "TRON-to". (Really? with the second 't'? It goes beyond South side Chicago)
> Sacrimento as "sa-cri-MEN-ta"


 (same here, and just in case, it's Sacr*a*mento)


----------



## k-in-sc

Pinutera said:


> Thirty - Forty con r en español
> Thirty - Forty con d en español


The first one is not even close. The second one, don't drag out the "d" sound like that. It needs to be shorter and sharper, more like a "t."


----------



## Gabriel

"Pronucniación estadounidense/americana" (mencionado por muchos)
Digo yo, ¿los Beatles eran yanquis?
Lerit bi, lerit bi, lerit bi, oh, lerit bi. Wispe wed'ov wism, lerit bi


----------



## k-in-sc

You guys just aren't hearing the sounds right. "L" and "R" sound the same to Asians ...


----------



## inib

Gabriel said:


> "Pronucniación estadounidense/americana" (mencionado por muchos)
> Digo yo, ¿los Beatles eran yanquis?
> Lerit bi, lerit bi, lerit bi, oh, lerit bi. Wispe wed'ov wism, lerit bi


Very funny (and quite true). I still can't fathom out why a lot of British singers use American pronunciation (or an approximation) in their songs. Another example: _Aaieengaei_ by the Rolling Stones.


----------



## srb62

CHOOZ-dee

I have no idea how widespread this is in the USA but I would say that if someone British were trying to 'take-off' or mimic an American accent, then this might be one attempt.


----------



## _SantiWR_

k-in-sc said:


> You guys just aren't hearing the sounds right. "L" and "R" sound the same to Asians ...



I've had a look at the wikipedia (maybe not the most reliable source, I know) and they also say that the sounds in be*tt*er (some english dialects) and ca*r*o (Spanish) are the same:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_flap#Occurrence


----------



## srb62

_SantiWR_ said:


> I've had a look at the wikipedia (maybe not the most reliable source, I know) and they also say that the sounds in be*tt*er (some english dialects) and ca*r*o (Spanish) are the same:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_flap#Occurrence



to me, it seems as if there very close, but 'r' in some English accents isn't quite the same, but is very close.
Note though that: I'm not a linguist; Spanish is not my mother tongue; I speak British, not US English; I do, however, have a natural 'r' as I'm Scottish - which might make me well-placed or very poorly-placed for passing comment!


----------



## grahamcracker

srb62 said:


> to me, it seems as if there very close, but 'r' in some English accents isn't quite the same, but is very close.
> Note though that: I'm not a linguist; Spanish is not my mother tongue; I speak British, not US English; I do, however, have a natural 'r' as I'm Scottish - which might make me well-placed or very poorly-placed for passing comment!


My high school Spanish teacher gave us a practice exercise for limbering up our tongues to roll and tapping our Spanish r's. It was to say "butter" real fast several times in succession.


----------



## aprendiendo argento

srb62 said:


> to me, it seems as if there very close, but 'r' in some English accents isn't quite the same, but is very close.
> Note though that: I'm not a linguist; Spanish is not my mother tongue; I speak British, not US English; I do, however, have a natural 'r' as I'm Scottish - which might make me well-placed or very poorly-placed for passing comment!



Do you hear American _Betty _more like Scottish _berry _[beɾi]  or like Scottish _beddie _[bedi] (little bed)?
To me, a Spanish intervocalic R sounds stronger than the American English intervocalic t, which is more like a ''fast'' D.


----------



## grahamcracker

aprendiendo argento said:


> Do you hear American _Betty _more like Scottish _berry _[beɾi]  or like Scottish _beddie _[bedi] (little bed)?
> To me, a Spanish intervocalic R sounds stronger than the American English intervocalic t, which is more like a ''fast'' D.


Possibly. My intervocalic Spanish "r's" tend to be very weak unless I have been practicing or unless I concentrate. For example, the "r" is Carlos is liable to sound very American if I am not careful.


----------



## srb62

aprendiendo argento said:


> Do you hear American _Betty _more like Scottish _berry _[beɾi]  or like Scottish _beddie _[bedi] (little bed)?
> To me, a Spanish intervocalic R sounds stronger than the American English intervocalic t, which is more like a ''fast'' D.



Nice question - and one that has ended up with my teenage son thinking I'm even more crazy than he already believed, as he listens to me trying out the two possibilities!
It's sort of 'in-between', if that's possible.  When I try to do the American 'Betty', it's almost as if I mix together a combination of t, d and r!  - as if I go for the 'r' sound but the t and d get in the way.  Of course, I'm not an American, so I'm probably doing it in an entirely different way anyway!  Good question, though.


----------



## inib

I'm the least qualified to say so, but I think this very interesting discussion will eventually lead to nowhere. None of us know exactly what the others pronounce or perceive. The only way to get to the core is through a very thorough knowledge of phonetics, and those of us who can't claim that have to imitate the best we can and hope for the best.
(My English mother and I (English) - same accent, same upbringing -  hear the same word spoken by the same Spanish person at the same time and perceive different consonants!)


----------



## k-in-sc

Because they're in between. They're not exact equivalents. Look at how many sounds are lost in "Lerit bi, lerit bi, lerit bi, oh, lerit bi. Wispe wed'ov wism, lerit bi." It's an oversimplification. I've had this problem in Spanish, listening to something over and over and still not hearing a sound the way natives are telling me it is. It helps to have somebody make the two sounds for you live over and over until you can tell them apart.


----------



## inib

k-in-sc said:


> Because they're in between. They're not exact equivalents. Look at how many sounds are lost in "Lerit bi, lerit bi, lerit bi, oh, lerit bi. Wispe wed'ov wism, lerit bi." It's an oversimplification. I've had this problem in Spanish, listening to something over and over and still not hearing a sound the way natives are telling me it is. It helps to have somebody make the two sounds for you live over and over until you can tell them apart.


Agree. If a sound is different, it is different - learn/imitate it if you can. If not, resign yourself to having a foreign accent. Comparisons with familiar sounds of your own language only complicate things further and will ensure that foreign accent.


----------



## k-in-sc

inib said:


> Comparisons with familiar sounds of your own language only complicate things further and will ensure that foreign accent.


Totally agree. Also, if sounds in a phrase are elided, traces of them are still there, so pronouncing the phrase as if they aren't there at all sounds wrong.


----------



## inib

k-in-sc said:


> ...Also, if sounds in a phrase are elided,* traces *of them are still there, ...


That might not be the most technical explanation, but I can see exactly what you mean, and once again share your opinion.


> I've had this problem in Spanish, listening to something over and over and still not hearing a sound the way natives are telling me it is.



The good news for the OP is that (years of) practice does help. I remember when I had to pretend that I could hear the difference between "perro" and "pero", or "ahí" and "allí". Now they seem as enormously different to me as "they" and "day", or "cut" and "cat" - ie: worlds apart.
Patience and an open mind to new sounds are what I recommend.


----------



## duvija

inib said:


> That might not be the most technical explanation, but I can see exactly what you mean, and once again share your opinion.
> 
> Yes. "Disappeared" sounds leave 'traces'. If a consonant goes, the vowels surrounding the presumably-there consonant, carry the difference. If the run-away is a vowel, the consonants take on some characteristics, like rounding, fronting, etc.
> 
> The good news for the OP is that (years of) practice does help. I remember when I had to pretend that I could hear the difference between "perro" and "pero", or "ahí" and "allí". Now they seem as enormously different to me as "they" and "day", or "cut" and "cat" - ie: worlds apart.
> 
> Really? so you're telling us sheet/shit are different? And that my parents didn't manage to get to Uruguay by sheep?
> 
> Patience and an open mind to new sounds are what I recommend.


----------



## k-in-sc

The bitches of Uruguay are very beautiful ...
Interesting how you can hear a song a million times (in your own language or a different one) and one day the light bulb just comes on and you go, "Oh, THAT'S what they're saying."


----------



## chileno

k-in-sc said:


> Because they're in between. They're not exact equivalents. Look at how many sounds are lost in "Lerit bi, lerit bi, lerit bi, oh, lerit bi. Wispe wed'ov wism, lerit bi." It's an oversimplification. I've had this problem in Spanish, listening to something over and over and still not hearing a sound the way natives are telling me it is. It helps to have somebody make the two sounds for you live over and over until you can tell them apart.




Probably you would like it like this?

Leht eat bee, leht eat bee, ohohoh, leht eat bee.  Weesperrr guords off weesdohm leht eat bee.

The T's like Spanish T's, of course.


----------



## k-in-sc

My point was that you can't render English sounds accurately with Spanish orthography.


----------



## chileno

k-in-sc said:


> My point was that you can't render English sounds accurately with Spanish orthography.




Correct, But do you prefer the way I posted it?

But, it's better than nothing, uh?

Or do you really think that a person from another country can start pronouncing like a native from the get go? 

It is hard for anyone studying a foreign language, especially those that live outside the target native language's country.


----------



## k-in-sc

inib said:


> Comparisons with familiar sounds of your own language only complicate things further and will ensure that foreign accent.


----------



## chileno

eef ju say so.


----------



## duvija

You'll have the foreign accent regardless. (answer to k-in-sc #53)


----------



## k-in-sc

Check out TheDustinLuke's over-the-top gringo argentinizado act on YouTube ...


----------



## chileno

duvija said:


> You'll have the foreign accent regardless. (answer to k-in-sc #53)



That's for sure. Unless the person takes special speech classes and makes a conscious effort. And I am talking about a person who's living, say in the US. What about someone who is living abroad?

I am still waiting for an answer from K-in-SC!


----------



## duvija

k-in-sc said:


> Check out TheDustinLuke's over-the-top gringo argentinizado act on YouTube ...



I can't believe it!  a perfect bilingual?


----------



## chileno

duvija said:


> I can't believe it!  a perfect bilingual?



There are plenty of those...and then you have these people that are gifted, you need to know their story first, right?

By far this does not happen to the majority of the people that learn a foreign language, especially if the person was not exposed to the other language since a child, like their parents or one of them talking to them more or less the other language.

Se sabe del milagro, pero no se habla del santo.


----------



## k-in-sc

I thought you were *supposed* to make a conscious effort not to have an accent.

As for Dustin Luke, those videos are performances. He probably still makes gringo-type mistakes once in a while ...


----------



## Gabriel

k-in-sc said:


> As for Dustin Luke, those videos are performances. He probably still makes gringo-type mistakes once in a while ...


Not only that.
While his pronunciation is amazingly similar (ok, identical most of the time) to that of a group of Argentinians (mostly wealthy young people from some selected Buenos Aires' neighborhoods), his intonation is not natural to my ears, but an over-acting of such class. It's like he is caricaturing, like he was an actor of one of those "novelas" for teenagers in the TV.


----------



## grahamcracker

Gabriel said:


> Not only that.
> While his pronunciation is amazingly similar (ok, identical most of the time) to that of a group of Argentinians (mostly wealthy young people from some selected Buenos Aires' neighborhoods), his intonation is not natural to my ears, but an over-acting of such class. It's like he is caricaturing, like he was an actor of one of those "novelas" for teenagers in the TV.


Americans call that kind of speaking an "affectation". It is like when some American born people trill their "r's" in order to sound more scholarly than they are.


----------



## Pinutera

Para mí Betty en inglés americano es Beri, bueno para cualquiera que habla español. No es ni Bedi, ni Bety.


----------



## chileno

Pinutera said:


> Para mí Betty en inglés americano es Beri, bueno para cualquiera que habla español. No es ni Bedi, ni Bety.



Hay gente acá en EE.UU que pronuncian Bety. (soft T)


----------

