# [wud or gud]



## pacobc

How do we have to pronounce "would"?
According to the dictionnary [wʊd, _weak form_ wəd]

I recently had a discussion about it with an English teacher of mine, who pronounce it [gʊd]. 
What do you think about?


----------



## lauranazario

Transfering this thread to the English-Only forum.
LN


----------



## Outsider

[wud] is the correct pronunciation ("ou-oude", or "ou-ode", according to French spelling).


----------



## fetchezlavache

pacobc you might want to give this http://www.research.att.com/projects/tts/demo.html a click, it's an audio help for pronunciation.


----------



## timpeac

pacobc said:
			
		

> How do we have to pronounce "would"?
> According to the dictionnary [wʊd, _weak form_ wəd]
> 
> I recently had a discussion about it with an English teacher of mine, who pronounce it [gʊd].
> What do you think about?


 
In French terms, the vowel sounds like "e muet". That's the French e without an accent. Think of that abominable song "alloutette". Allouett*eh* gentille allouett*eh*". Well the pronunciation of the *eh* is not a million miles different from the English vowel in "would".


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> In French terms, the vowel sounds like "e muet". That's the French e without an accent. Think of that abominable song "alloutette". Allouett*eh* gentille allouett*eh*". Well the pronunciation of the *eh* is not a million miles different from the English vowel in "would".


I strongly disagree. The _e muet_ is far from being the closest approximation to the vowel in _would_!


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> I strongly disagree. The _e muet_ is far from being the closest approximation to the vowel in _would_!


 
Well I think it would be more helpful if you would also suggest which of the French vowels is closest then. (then we can have the proper discussion since I will strongly defend e muet as being a fine aproximation of the vowel in would).


----------



## Outsider

I did, above.

The exact vowel does not exist in French, but I'd suggest either _ou_ or _o_ (as in _dos_), or some sound in between them, as a first approximation.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> I did, above.
> 
> The exact vowel does not exist in French, but I'd suggest either _ou_ or _o_ (as in _dos_), or some sound in between them as a first approximation.


 
Ah so you did, sorry.

Well I completely disagree with you. It is one of the architypal examples of a French person speaking English that they pronounce this sound with the French "ou". This is not a good approximation of the English pronunciation at all.

The e muet really isn't very far off at all. I've just noticed that in the first post the dictionary even gives e muet as a possible vowel for would! (its the upside down e for those that don't know). I would completely agree with this.


----------



## Outsider

Curiously, _my_ impression is that the archetypical example of a French person mispronouncing English is in pronouncing _would_ with an _e muet_. It makes them sound like Inspector Clouseau. 
I suppose this could be subjective...

P.S. I've given this a little more thought, and I think I do recall the vowel in _would_ sounding a bit like an _e muet_, at least when the word is pronounced quickly.

Either way, [gud] is definitely wrong.


----------



## Phryne

timpeac said:
			
		

> The e muet really isn't very far off at all. I've just noticed that in the first post the dictionary even gives e muet as a possible vowel for would! (its the upside down e for those that don't know). I would completely agree with this.


 
Sorry to interrupt. 

The upside down e, [ə] is called _schwa_ and represents an unstressed vowel. So this means that it may have different sounds.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> Curiously, _my_ impression is that the archetypical example of a French person mispronouncing English is in pronouncing _would_ with an _e muet_. It makes them sound like Inspector Clouseau.
> I suppose this could be subjective...


 
Yes, I think that language always becomes subjective because it is so emotive. Also it is extremely difficult to _write_ about the way things are spoken. We could be talking about the exact same thing and not realise it.

In reference to your Clouseau comment, that is fairish. The French e muet is not pronounce quite in the same way as the English. They hold their mouths quite rigid and the lips rounded (to various degrees). The English one is much more relaxed, almost no muscle tension and no rounded lips. The Clouseau sound is really over-pronounced even for a French e muet. It's more like a "oe" or a <symbol like O with a diagonal line through it> don't you think?

I was trying to give a rough estimate of this sound to a French person and I don't think their e muet is that far away, but yes to make it even better their should be little muscular tension - like when you relax down into a chair at the end of a long day and go uhhhh! I must say that I really don't think the French "ou" /u/ sounds anything like the English pronunciation of "would" though.

Edit - Outsider I've just noticed at the end of your last post you wrote /u/ is definitely wrong. I completely agree, but that _is_ the French pronunciation of "ou".


----------



## timpeac

Phryne said:
			
		

> Sorry to interrupt.
> 
> The upside down e, [ə] is called _schwa_ and represents an unstressed vowel. So this means that it may have different sounds.



That's fine Phryne - it's not a private conversation!!

I don't understand what you mean though - why would the fact it's unstressed mean that it can have different sounds? I don't follow the logic. Thanks.


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> In reference to your Clouseau comment, that is fairish. The French e muet is not pronounce quite in the same way as the English. They hold their mouths quite rigid and the lips rounded (to various degrees). The English one is much more relaxed, almost no muscle tension and no rounded lips. The Clouseau sound is really over-pronounced even for a French e muet. It's more like a "oe" or a <symbol like O with a diagonal line through it> don't you think?


Clouseau's accent is exaggerated, of course. (_'An officer of the leu_...') 



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> I was trying to give a rough estimate of this sound to a French person and I don't think their e muet is that far away, but yes to make it even better their should be little muscular tension - like when you relax down into a chair at the end of a long day and go uhhhh! I must say that I really don't think the French "ou" /u/ sounds anything like the English pronunciation of "would" though.


It's far from perfect, I agree. To me, the closed _o_ of French sounds a bit closer to the English sound...


----------



## Phryne

timpeac said:
			
		

> That's fine Phryne - it's not a private conversation!!
> 
> I don't understand what you mean though - why would the fact it's unstressed mean that it can have different sounds? I don't follow the logic. Thanks.


 
Thanks!

I don't know the logic of it. English is just my second language!!! 

My point is that you can't say "XXXX in French can be represented by the _schwa_ sound". It is very misleading because it may have different sounds, like the last sound of _sof*a*_and the last vowel of _Rach*e*l. _They are both represented by the _schwa_ sound and they are definitely not pronounced the same.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> Clouseau's accent is exaggerated, of course. (_'An officer of the leu_...')
> 
> 
> It's far from perfect, I agree. To me, the closed _o_ of French sounds a bit closer to the English sound...


 
Yes, I agree, it's definitely closer.  I don't think we're going to get any nearer without a language lab and some recording equipment now!!


----------



## Outsider

Phryne said:
			
		

> My point is that you can't say "XXXX in French can be represented by the schwa sound". It is very misleading because it may have different sounds, like the last sound of sofaand the last vowel of Rachel. They are both represented by the schwa sound and they are definitely not pronounced the same.


Perhaps what you mean is that there are several different sounds commonly described as _schwas_. For instance, European Portuguese has two different _schwas_.


----------



## timpeac

Phryne said:
			
		

> Thanks!
> 
> I don't know the logic of it. English is just my second language!!!
> 
> My point is that you can't say "XXXX in French can be represented by the _schwa_ sound". It is very misleading because it may have different sounds, like the last sound of _sof*a*_and the last vowel of _Rach*e*l. _They are both represented by the _schwa_ sound and they are definitely not pronounced the same.


 
I presume you mean in English? Personally I do pronounce those vowels in a fairly similar fashion!! The e of Rachel is pulled slightly to the back of the mouth because that is where the following l is pronounced. I think we're all getting to deep into discussing small differences now - it's just not possible for us to be clear what we mean _writing_ about speaking...


----------



## Phryne

Outsider said:
			
		

> Perhaps what you mean is that there are several different sounds commonly described as _schwas_. For instance, European Portuguese has two different _schwas_.


 
Yes. If someone says "prounce the first sound of X word like a _schwa_", I may wonder which _schwa_! Rach*e*l? sof*a*? Sometimes even b*u*t is represented by a _schwa_...


----------



## timpeac

Phryne said:
			
		

> Yes. If someone says "prounce the first sound of X word like a _schwa_", I may wonder which _schwa_! Rach*e*l? sof*a*? Sometimes even b*u*t is represented by a _schwa_...


 
I don't get what you're saying Phryne. You only use the schwa to show sounds when they _sound_ like schwa. For example there are some people in the north of England who pronounce "but" with the schwa. But they really do use the vowel of sof*a*. If people don't use a sound that sounds like schwa then I wouldn't expect them to use that symbol....


----------



## Phryne

timpeac said:
			
		

> I don't get what you're saying Phryne. You only use the schwa to show sounds when they _sound_ like schwa. For example there are some people in the north of England who pronounce "but" with the schwa. But they really do use the vowel of sof*a*. If people don't use a sound that sounds like schwa then I wouldn't expect them to use that symbol....


 
OK, maybe *I *am confused, but I learned that the schwa is not necessarily pronounced the same way in every case and it only represents an unstressed vowel sound, regardless of the differences. And to me, Rach*e*l and sof*a* do not sound the same at all. 

Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you all....


----------



## timpeac

Phryne said:
			
		

> OK, maybe *I *am confused, but I learned that the schwa is not necessarily pronounced the same way in every case and it only represents an unstressed vowel sound, regardless of the differences. And to me, Rach*e*l and sof*a* do not sound the same at all.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you all....


 
Yes, any sound in a different place in a word will be slightly different to how it is pronounced elsewhere (because it's pronunciation is partially assimilated to adjacent sounds because we pronounce things in a constant stream, not one sound after another). However, the schwa has a definition as to where it is pronounced (middle of the mouth) and various other defining characteristics. It is a vowel like /a/ or /e/ or /u/ etc and if you use that symbol you should be representing fairly similar sounds.

I wouldn't use the Rach*e*l example because that schwa is really coloured by the adjacent l and I imagine that is why it sounds so different to you. In the UK where we don't pronounce the -r at the end of the word the last vowel of "sofa" "weather" "terror" "broken" "thomas" "famous" are all pronounced near enough in a similar manner to get the same symbol (subject to slight differences due to the following letter if applicable). 

And on the other side of the coin, an unstressed vowel is not necessarily schwa - "decid*e*d" is pronounced like /I/.

I think whoever told you that was rather oversimplifying things...

To head off any questions early - the above examples are all from my speech, I can imagine that some or all could be different in other regional accents!!


----------



## Phryne

Interesting! It makes a lot of sense!

I will think about it a little more, but not just to contradict you. See, I don't pronounce words the British way, and as I said, English is my second language; therefore, I need extra practice just to come up with the same conclusions as you natives do. 

Thanks for you explanation! Cheers!


----------



## Artrella

pacobc said:
			
		

> How do we have to pronounce "would"?
> According to the dictionnary [wʊd, _weak form_ wəd]
> 
> I recently had a discussion about it with an English teacher of mine, who pronounce it [gʊd].
> What do you think about?




Your teacher is wrong.  I studied phonetics at school and when I pronounced "would" as "good" they corrected me to /wud/.  The way you articulate the sound is different in both cases.


----------



## mjscott

AE-
Winstons taste good
Like a cigarette should--
Smoking, you would
Cause some damage—yes you could!

Regardless the name,
The vowels, they all sound the same,
Abide by the law
When he asks tell him it’s pronounced, “schwa”!

pacobc, be good,
Like a good student should;
Your teacher’s probably an ass,
But don’t let him know it ‘til you pass!


----------



## te gato

Hey all;

Sorry here we say...would...like 'wood'..as well as should...could...stood...good...they all sound the same...

te gato


----------



## timpeac

Artrella said:
			
		

> Your teacher is wrong. I studied phonetics at school and when I pronounced "would" as "good" they corrected me to /wud/. The way you articulate the sound is different in both cases.


 
Sorry, I'd say *your* teacher is wrong!! Certainly "would" and "good" are pronounced identically where I come from (and neither with /u/).


----------



## languageGuy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'd say *your* teacher is wrong!! Certainly "would" and "good" are pronounced identically where I come from (and neither with /u/).


 
Please tell me you are mistaken.  The issue here is how to pronounce the first letter of the word.  "would" is never pronounced with a "g" sound, always with a "w" sound, like the word "wagon".


----------



## timpeac

languageGuy said:
			
		

> Please tell me you are mistaken. The issue here is how to pronounce the first letter of the word. "would" is never pronounced with a "g" sound, always with a "w" sound, like the word "wagon".


 
Aaaah, I am only talking about the vowel used, not the whole word. It good have been better if I had written "these two words rhyme for me".

Good that be better? That's would.


----------



## Artrella

timpeac said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'd say *your* teacher is wrong!! Certainly "would" and "good" are pronounced identically where I come from (and neither with /u/).





Hi Tim, why do you say my teacher is wrong?  Maybe she teaches us the general pronunciation, and then according to the different places you pronounce one way or the other.  We are taught RP pronunciation, may be this is why you say she is wrong? 

*good* = /gud/ >>> I don't have the short /u/ that's why I write just this /u/
*
would*= /wud/ >> strong form  /wed/ >> that "e" has to be a "schwa" but I cannot type phonetics symbols.

_This is from Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary_


----------



## timpeac

Artrella said:
			
		

> Hi Tim, why do you say my teacher is wrong? Maybe she teaches us the general pronunciation, and then according to the different places you pronounce one way or the other. We are taught RP pronunciation, may be this is why you say she is wrong?
> 
> *good* = /gud/ >>> I don't have the short /u/ that's why I write just this /u/
> 
> *would*= /wud/ >> strong form /wed/ >> that "e" has to be a "schwa" but I cannot type phonetics symbols.
> 
> _This is from Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary_


 
Well I firstly say that because you wrote /gud/ and /u/ is not the way it is pronounced (I didn't know you were writing that to represent another symbol).

Well, certainly where I come from the two are pronounced the same. What do other native speakers reckon? I notice we've already had one vote for pronouncing them the same above.

Note that here we are talking about real-life phonetic pronunciation, rather than traditional phonemic symbol used.


----------



## Artrella

timpeac said:
			
		

> Well I firstly say that because you wrote /gud/ and /u/ is not the way it is pronounced (I didn't know you were writing that to represent another symbol).
> 
> Well, certainly where I come from the two are pronounced the same. What do other native speakers reckon? I notice we've already had one vote for pronouncing them the same above.
> 
> Note that here we are talking about real-life phonetic pronunciation, rather than traditional phonemic symbol used.




Yes Tim, I *need* to know how _real people _ pronounce , it's part of my study.  So your comments are really useful to me, but you know ... when I sit my exams I have to pronounce the words the way my teacher has taught me...


----------



## timpeac

Artrella said:
			
		

> Yes Tim, I *need* to know how _real people _pronounce , it's part of my study. So your comments are really useful to me, but you know ... when I sit my exams I have to pronounce the words the way my teacher has taught me...


 
I completely understand. Note that the "traditional" symbols used in transcribing language are not necessarily those that are still used (confusingly). If I were you I would definitely use the symbols that you're teacher suggests in your exams!!!

A good example of this is the symbol "ae" (joined together). Lots of people think there is some weird way to pronounce this symbol (and it was different about 100 years ago) but my british pronunication of a word like "man" which would be written /m ae n/ in English phonetics, sounds to me fairly identical to the French or Spanish vowel /a/ of "la" say but that is written phonemically as /a/.

In the real world I'd say I pronounce "man" as /man/ but a dictionary would show /m ae n/ I believe.


----------



## languageGuy

timpeac said:
			
		

> I completely understand. Note that the "traditional" symbols used in transcribing language are not necessarily those that are still used (confusingly). If I were you I would definitely use the symbols that you're teacher suggests in your exams!!!
> 
> A good example of this is the symbol "ae" (joined together). Lots of people think there is some weird way to pronounce this symbol (and it was different about 100 years ago) but my british pronunication of a word like "man" which would be written /m ae n/ in English phonetics, sounds to me fairly identical to the French or Spanish vowel /a/ of "la" say but that is written phonemically as /a/.
> 
> In the real world I'd say I pronounce "man" as /man/ but a dictionary would show /m ae n/ I believe.


 
Where is Henry Higgins when you need him?

The 'ae ligature' and the 'a' are different sounds.  It is more apparent in American English than in British.  The influence of the French aristocracy still lingers in British pronounciation, especially in words containg the letters 'an'.  Here the British often use the 'a' sound, mimicing to some degree the French nasal 'a'.  American and British pronounciation of words like dance and can are different.

To hear the different consider the words 'father' and 'fatter'.  The first uses 'a' the second 'ae'.


----------



## timpeac

languageGuy said:
			
		

> Where is Henry Higgins when you need him?
> 
> The 'ae ligature' and the 'a' are different sounds. It is more apparent in American English than in British. The influence of the French aristocracy still lingers in British pronounciation, especially in words containg the letters 'an'. Here the British often use the 'a' sound, mimicing to some degree the French nasal 'a'. American and British pronounciation of words like dance and can are different.
> 
> To hear the different consider the words 'father' and 'fatter'. The first uses 'a' the second 'ae'.


 
Hehe, I'm afraid I don't know enought about the history of English as you to comment on that. I can say though that for me "father" had a back a (in phonetic symbols a round a like you would write by hand instead of "a") and "fatter" has /a/!!

I think we've opened a can of worms here...


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> A good example of this is the symbol "ae" (joined together). Lots of people think there is some weird way to pronounce this symbol (and it was different about 100 years ago) but my british pronunication of a word like "man" which would be written /m ae n/ in English phonetics, sounds to me fairly identical to the French or Spanish vowel /a/ of "la" say but that is written phonemically as /a/.
> 
> In the real world I'd say I pronounce "man" as /man/ but a dictionary would show /m ae n/ I believe.


They sound different to me when I hear them on TV. Most people do not pronounce the "a" in "man" as they pronounce the "a" in "ah".

Of course it "feels" like an "a" to you, because you were brought up writing it that way. But in standard phonetic notation, that sound is written /ae/ (ligature), not /a/, because the way it's pronounced in English is _not_ identical to the way it is pronounced in most languages that use the Latin alphabet.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> They sound different to me when I hear them on TV. Most people do not pronounce the "a" in "man" as they pronounce the "a" in "ah".
> 
> Of course it "feels" like an "a" to you, because you were brought up writing it that way. But in standard phonetic notation, that sound is written /ae/ (ligature), not /a/, because the way it's pronounced in English is _not_ identical to the way it is pronounced in most languages that use the Latin alphabet.


 
That is really not my experience. I don't hear any big difference at all between the Uk pronunciation of this vowel, and that of German, Spanish, French or Portuguese (although I must admit I know least about Portuguese).


----------



## Outsider

It may vary according to accent. For instance, I get the impression that people with a Scottish accent do pronounce "man" and "ah" with the same vowel. However, in the standard English accent, I would say that they're two different vowels.

P.S. The difference between standard British English "man" and standard German "Mann" seems quite conspicuous to me, by the way...


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> It may vary according to accent. For instance, I get the impression that people with a Scottish accent do pronounce "man" and "ah" with the same vowel. However, in the standard English accent, I would say that they're two different vowels.


 
Sorry I misread your first post. I agree, most people pronounce the a of father differently from the a of fatter.

Sorry, I'm missing your point. I'm saying that I think that a of fatter (in the South of the uK at least) sounds pretty much like the continental a. Do you disagree with that?


----------



## Outsider

Yes, I do. The continental "a" is the one in "father", not the one in "fatter".
The latter is a slightly different vowel, hence the different phonetic symbol. This is particularly clear in American accents (but in those it's practically a diphtong), but it also happens in some British accents.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> Yes, I do. The continental /a/ is the one in "father", not the one in "fatter".
> The latter is a slightly different vowel, hence the different phonetic symbol. This is particularly clear in American accents (but in those it's practically a diphtong), but it also happens in some British accents.


 
Well this is kind of my point. That symbol is out of date for the pronunciation of the sounth of England (the only accent I can really talk authoritatively on since it is mine). But we use this symbol which reflects the posh speak of the 1920's. I'm sure that the Germans go around calling Mandy "mendy" and asking for a "Big Mec" (they even put an umlaut on the a to reflect this!) is because they learn this phonetic symbol, which really doesn't reflect the average (south UK) accent which is still taught in many schools. To my ears English man and German Mann sound very similar.


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> Well this is kind of my point. That symbol is out of date for the pronunciation of the sounth of England (the only accent I can really talk authoritatively on since it is mine).


Well, dictionaries can't list _all_ accents, understandably...



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> But we use this symbol which reflects the posh speak of the 1920's. I'm sure that the Germans go around calling Mandy "mendy" and asking for a "Big Mec" (they even put an umlaut on the a to reflect this!) is because they learn this phonetic symbol, which really doesn't reflect the average (south UK) accent which is still taught in many schools.


No one said it was an /e/, either. 
Foreigners sometimes pronounce it /e/ because that's the closest sound they have in their own language.



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> To my ears English man and German Mann sound very similar.


Definitely similiar, but not the same.


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> Well, dictionaries can't list _all_ accents, understandably...


 
Yes of course they can't but if we go back to what I was saying - I was explicitly talking about the way things are spoken and warning Art to not put too much faith in the fact that the symbol used to give the "phonetic" transcription in dictionaries might not be the best symbol for how it is pronounced in the real world. Maybe Americans do use /ae/ but there are definitely some symbols used that are out of date (I must admit I know more about the phonetics of the Romance languages rather than English).


			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> No one said it was an /e/, either.
> Foreigners sometimes pronounce it /e/ because that's the closest sound they have in their own language.


 
No I don't think so - I have heard foreign students who are learning the British accent use /e/ for "a" who have /a/ in their own languages. I think that it is the fact that they see a different symbol /ae/ in their dictionaries that makes them think they can't possibly use their own pronunciation /a/ for this sound, when often it really isn't far off, and nearer than /e/ in any case.


----------



## Outsider

timpeac said:
			
		

> No I don't think so - I have heard foreign students who are learning the British accent use /e/ for "a" who have /a/ in their own languages. I think that it is the fact that they see a different symbol /ae/ in their dictionaries that makes them think they can't possibly use their own pronunciation /a/ for this sound, when often it really isn't far off, and nearer than /e/ in any case.


I disagree. I know people who learned English without ever using the phonetic alphabet, and they still tend to pronounce /ae/ as /e/. My interpretation is that the closest sound to /ae/ is actually /e/, not /a/ (at least, from their point of view) .


----------



## timpeac

Outsider said:
			
		

> I disagree. I know people who learned English without ever using the phonetic alphabet, and they still tend to pronounce /ae/ as /e/. My interpretation is that the closest sound to /ae/ is actually /e/, not /a/ (at least, from their point of view) .


 
Fair enough! I think we'd better agree to disagree on that one. Maybe its a UK/US thing (I presume you're learning US English from what you've said).

I'd love to have this conversation face to face, for all we know we are talking about the same sounds! Maybe we should suggest a live video link in the forum suggestions...

Regards


----------

