# pronunciation: assimilation [/ t / changes to / p / before / m / / b / or / p /]



## vladv

I came across the unfamiliar cases of consonant linking as below,

1./ t / changes to / p / before / m / / b / or / p /
as in "tha*t* *m*an", "se*t* *b*ack" and "las*t* *p*ost"

2./ d / changes to / b / before / m / / b / or / p /
as in "goo*d* *m*orning", "bloo*d* *b*ank" and "ba*d* *p*ain"

3./ n / changes to / m / before / m / / b / or / p /
as in "o*n*e *m*e", "ope*n* *b*ook" and "pe*n* *p*al"

4./ t / changes to / k / before / k / or /g/
as in "credi*t* *c*ard" and "cu*t* *g*lass"

5./ d / changes to / g / before / k / or / g /
as in  "col*d* *c*all" and ba*d* *g*irl"

*My question to native speakers of English*
Do you really speak like that ? Can one omit this rules and still sound natural?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Where did you find this? As advice, it is absurd.

We often merge sounds when speaking fast, but no one sets out to do this. If you say "good morning" fast enough, most of "good" apart from the "g" at the beginning might disappear, but no one tries to pronounce it "goob morning". On the other hand, it is often pronounced very distinctly as "good morning".

Aim to pronounce each of the consonants listed in your post in the way that they are written, and you will not go far wrong. Aim to pronounce them as something else, and you will likely go very wrong indeed.


----------



## JulianStuart

I don't think these are rules.  I think they may be listed as possibilities to be aware of, not to try and do consciously.  Some of them _have_ happened over time: the opposite of explode is implode.  It may have arisen from the n before p can become an m. Also for implant and so on.  When you read about pronunciations in English (and ask in these many threads) you should be aware of whether they are saying "this is how you should pronounce it" and "You may hear these (but don't try to copy them)."


----------



## vladv

So one can pronounce credit card like it is written, without omitting the "t' and still sound natural?


----------



## JulianStuart

vladv said:


> So one can pronounce credit card like it is written, without omitting the "t' and still sound natural?


Yes.  The extent to which those changes occurs is quite variable and some will completely omit the t (or not "release" it or glottal stop it or some technical term) while others may say it completely, especially in  formal situations or when the listener is not a native speaker.  _There is a range between those two limits_.  This concept applies to many pronunciation options in English.  The terminal t may be omitted by some even if it is the last word in the sentence.


----------



## kentix

Again, these are things that happen in natural speech. The t becomes faint. Maybe so faint you can barely hear it. But the person doesn't say the word without the t. If the person said it without the t then the word would become credi and that would be pronounced credee. And no one says credee card.


----------



## Cork Irish

vladv said:


> I came across the unfamiliar cases of consonant linking as below,
> 
> 1./ t / changes to / p / before / m / / b / or / p /
> as in "tha*t* *m*an", "se*t* *b*ack" and "las*t* *p*ost"
> 
> 2./ d / changes to / b / before / m / / b / or / p /
> as in "goo*d* *m*orning", "bloo*d* *b*ank" and "ba*d* *p*ain"
> 
> 3./ n / changes to / m / before / m / / b / or / p /
> as in "o*n*e *m*e", "ope*n* *b*ook" and "pe*n* *p*al"
> 
> 4./ t / changes to / k / before / k / or /g/
> as in "credi*t* *c*ard" and "cu*t* *g*lass"
> 
> 5./ d / changes to / g / before / k / or / g /
> as in  "col*d* *c*all" and ba*d* *g*irl"
> 
> *My question to native speakers of English*
> Do you really speak like that ? Can one omit this rules and still sound natural?


These are all entirely correct: those are the rules of assimilation in English pronunciation. It is possible to speak really slowly and actually say "in bed", but in normal life nearly everyone (including those who don't realise it) says "im bed". Assimilation produces more fluent and natural English.


----------



## Cork Irish

kentix said:


> Again, these are things that happen in natural speech. The t becomes faint. Maybe so faint you can barely hear it. But the person doesn't say the word without the t. If the person said it without the t then the word would become credi and that would be pronounced credee. And no one says credee card.


In bed (im bed) has assimilation by place of articulation, but with "credit card" the issue is more complex. The t is assimilated by place of articulation to become a k, but then the final k is then pre-glottalised, so the final result is /kʰɹɛdɘˀk kʰɑːd/. Many TESL teachers speak carefully enunciated English, but in England, at least, this pronunciation is normal outside of the classroom.


----------



## dojibear

Learn any "rules" you want. If they help you hear things better, that's good.

Just don't ever tell anyone they are "wrong" because they don't follow these rules. Because they aren't "rules". A person can speak English perfectly, without doing these things.

These are common patterns that describe what many speakers do. But that is "many speakers", not "all speakers".


----------



## dojibear

Cork Irish said:


> but in normal life nearly everyone (including those who don't realise it) says "im bed".


The points of articulation (mouth and tongue positions) for /n/ and /m/ are quite different. When I say "in bed" my tongue moves to the /n/ position. Always. Every time. So in terms of actions that I perform, I say "in bed", not "im bed".

But my lips have to close to pronounce /b/. That closing, combined with the voicing for /n/, may create an /m/ sound. So the difference is just timing. A listener might hear "i*n*bed" or "i*nm*bed" or "i*m*bed". I don't know what they hear.

So is this "linking" what speakers do, or what listeners hear?


----------



## Cork Irish

dojibear said:


> The points of articulation (mouth and tongue positions) for /n/ and /m/ are quite different. When I say "in bed" my tongue moves to the /n/ position. Always. Every time. So in terms of actions that I perform, I say "in bed", not "im bed".
> 
> But my lips have to close to pronounce /b/. That closing, combined with the voicing for /n/, may create an /m/ sound. So the difference is just timing. A listener might hear "i*n*bed" or "i*nm*bed" or "i*m*bed". I don't know what they hear.
> 
> So is this "linking" what speakers do, or what listeners hear?


Well, I'm not saying every native speaker does so, and I'm definitely not making definitive statements about all native speakers in North America, a topic I know little about other than having watched many movies. But by the same token, I'm not peddling some paradigm-changing or off-the-wall theory here. If you see what is said on this in the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary (link below), you will see that I'm not just pulling this out of my backside. There are English speakers who say *handbag* quite deliberately (particularly in conservative RP, which is a cultivated accent), but the numbers who say hambag are very high. TESL teachers often speak quite deliberately. Or at least I'm not aware of many TESL teachers who encourage the use of Estuary (Eschery English, hehe!) English instead of RP. But that is not very representative of English outside the classroom. There was a debate in England some years ago on whether to switch the standard from RP to EE, given that some estimates (how do they work this out?) claim only 3% of people in England speak conservative RP. John Wells wrote on this subject, and came down against this, as RP is an accent that has worldwide acceptability. But younger speakers of RP are introducing elements of EE into their pronunciation.

Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary


----------



## Cork Irish

dojibear said:


> But my lips have to close to pronounce /b/. That closing, combined with the voicing for /n/, may create an /m/ sound. So the difference is just timing. A listener might hear "i*n*bed" or "i*nm*bed" or "i*m*bed". I don't know what they hear.
> 
> So is this "linking" what speakers do, or what listeners hear?


No, it is not just what the listeners believe they hear. Because your explanation shows that it is possible to close the lips before the nasal passage has had time to close, producing an /m/. If you say you're sure your tongue touches the roof of the mouth every single time all the same, whether or not the lips are closed early, then I would believe you as you can feel your tongue. But your explanation itself shows that an /m/ can be created. You know how in Yoruba there is a /kp/ phoneme, pronounced simultaneously, well, you have raised the possibly of an /mn/ pronunciation in some speakers' English. I don't rule it out.


----------



## AquisM

Regardless of whether assimilation happens between syllables in English (and if so, to what extent), I think we can all agree that it's misleading to teach it to learners as a "rule". Assimilation in English isn't "formalised" like, say, in Korean. No native English speaker speaks thinking that it's more natural to pronounce "bad girl" as "bag girl" than as how it is spelt. Teaching learners to pronounce with assimilation would only cause them to make a _conscious effort_ to add assimilation in their pronunciation and likely make them very confused.


----------



## dojibear

I agree. Learners shouldn't copy "inferior accidental ways of speaking", including linking, schwaing vowels, omitting sounds, slurring sounds. None of that ever makes a learner's speech more understandable.

But many English teachers talk about linking. Maybe it is useful for hearing, which is quite difficult if your language is quite different. For example, an advanced student is sure they heard "baggirl" instead of "badgirl". If they know about linking, they recognize it and ignore it. If they don't know about linking, they are confused.

But "bag girl" is a poor example, since "bag girl" is quite natural to say. It isn't always "bad girl". For that matter, we also say "bat girl" and "ban girls" and "band girl" and "badge girl" and "back girl" and other things that only are 1 consonant different. So it isn't a "doesn't matter" consonant.


----------



## Cork Irish

dojibear said:


> I agree. Learners shouldn't copy "inferior accidental ways of speaking", including linking, schwaing vowels, omitting sounds, slurring sounds. None of that ever makes a learner's speech more understandable.
> 
> But many English teachers talk about linking. Maybe it is useful for hearing, which is quite difficult if your language is quite different. For example, an advanced student is sure they heard "baggirl" instead of "badgirl". If they know about linking, they recognize it and ignore it. If they don't know about linking, they are confused.
> 
> But "bag girl" is a poor example, since "bag girl" is quite natural to say. It isn't always "bad girl". For that matter, we also say "bat girl" and "ban girls" and "band girl" and "badge girl" and "back girl" and other things that only are 1 consonant different. So it isn't a "doesn't matter" consonant.


I think it is possibly a bit over the top to suddenly tell me that I speak "inferior" English. I don't think you would like it the other way round. I doubt if you heard me speaking that you would find me an inferior speaker of the language. You can hear my podcast on English pronunciation at the link below.

As pointed out, in the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary, assimilation is an accepted part of English pronunciation. Although I note that the examples given there are said to be especially common in British English. Daniel Jones (I think people will know who he was -- a pre-war professor of English who was an expert in pre-war RP and wrote the Everyman Pronouncing Dictionary, the 1917 edition of which I swear by) also accepted assimilation, and gave /m/ as one possible realisation of "and" before a labial. His dictionary is orthoepic and not just a collage of inferior forms.

I think the problem here is some people think the pronunciation should always match the spelling. But logically, in any language, the spoken language existed before any orthography was devised. Since mass literacy, some pronunciations have been reined back in towards the spelling. In the 18th century, the aristocracy used to say "huntin'" and many people pronounce words like "often" and even "dreamed" in line with the spelling. Surely it's only a matter of time before people like dojibear start claiming we pronounce "says" and "said" in an inferior fashion?

Assimilation has nothing to do with omitted sounds or slurred sounds. It arises from the natural phonology of the language. I think some of that may have gone in America (or maybe these things weren't there in the language when the Pilgrim Fathers made it there?)? Many US pronunciations seem closer to the spelling, possibly because of the impact on the language of the large L2 context State-side? But then there are other words like "county", pronounced as "counny" in the US, that are further from the spelling. It is a misunderstanding of linguistics to claim native speakers speak their language incorrectly or that they are slurring over sounds that only exist in the orthography.

<Sorry, no video links without prior moderator permission. Nat>


----------



## Cork Irish

AquisM said:


> Regardless of whether assimilation happens between syllables in English (and if so, to what extent), I think we can all agree that it's misleading to teach it to learners as a "rule". Assimilation in English isn't "formalised" like, say, in Korean. No native English speaker speaks thinking that it's more natural to pronounce "bad girl" as "bag girl" than as how it is spelt. Teaching learners to pronounce with assimilation would only cause them to make a _conscious effort_ to add assimilation in their pronunciation and likely make them very confused.


"We can all agree" - I don't. Words like "all" can be overused.
"No native English speaker thinks it's more natural to pronounce bad girl as bag girl" - I do.

I don't know what your sources on English are in Hong Kong - I am not a native speaker of Cantonese - but check out the podcast entitled "Pronunciation: Assimilation of /n/ followed by /p/" on the BBC Learning English Youtube channel. Elliot from ETJ English has many podcasts on assimilation. Check out the Youtube channels of Billie English, English Pronunciation Roadmap and Pronunciation with Emma. These are among the largest English-learning Youtube channels.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Cork Irish, can I suggest that you may have made a mistake in #7 when you write: "These are all entirely correct: those are the rules of assimilation in English pronunciation"?  I don't mean that your statement is untrue, I just suggest that it was unhelpful to use the word "rule".

To you as a scientist, these are rules of nature - phenomena which occur so often and in such a systematic way that they can be predicted.

To foreign students of English (and Russian and Chinese students seem to my reading of this forum to be particularly prone to this), there are grammar rules which are precepts to be obeyed.

In my view neither of these should be called "rules" - and if I can't allow such a well-known "rule" as _I before E, except after C_, then I'm certainly not going to agree to _/ t / changes to / p / before / m / / b / or / p /_!

I have always reckoned that if the patterns of assimilation are so universally powerful it is pointless for foreign students to learn them - their tongues will be obliged to obey willy-nilly.  And if they are not so powerful, it is unhelpful to learn them because most foreign students will already have their native accent to manage, without trying to cope with assimilation.

(Let me say in passing that I for one have never pronounced "tha*t* *m*an" as "thap man", while I do almost always say "hambag". Universal is as universal does.)


----------



## Cork Irish

Keith Bradford said:


> Cork Irish, can I suggest that you may have made a mistake in #7 when you write: "These are all entirely correct: those are the rules of assimilation in English pronunciation"?  I don't mean that your statement is untrue, I just suggest that it was unhelpful to use the word "rule".
> 
> To you as a scientist, these are rules of nature - phenomena which occur so often and in such a systematic way that they can be predicted.
> 
> To foreign students of English (and Russian and Chinese students seem to my reading of this forum to be particularly prone to this), there are grammar rules which are precepts to be obeyed.
> 
> In my view neither of these should be called "rules" - and if I can't allow such a well-known "rule" as _I before E, except after C_, then I'm certainly not going to agree to _/ t / changes to / p / before / m / / b / or / p /_!
> 
> I have always reckoned that if the patterns of assimilation are so universally powerful it is pointless for foreign students to learn them - their tongues will be obliged to obey willy-nilly.  And if they are not so powerful, it is unhelpful to learn them because most foreign students will already have their native accent to manage, without trying to cope with assimilation.
> 
> (Let me say in passing that I for one have never pronounced "tha*t* *m*an" as "thap man", while I do almost always say "hambag". Universal is as universal does.)


I correctly used the English word "rule".

You say you do assimilate in the word *handbag*. But you don't pronounce *that man* as "thap man". If you read back in the thread, you will have noticed that I said the rules on assimilation and glottalisation/pre-glottalisation need to both be considered. As far as I know, *that man* is pronounced with a glottal stop in normal English (i.e. not the English of a child reading slowly with a finger on his lip), /ðæʔ mæːn/ (some speakers may have /ðæˀp mæːn/). So I think I was wrong to say "credit card" is /kʰɹɛdɘˀk kʰɑːd/. I should have written /kʰɹʷɛdɘʔ kʰɑːd/.

A /t/ is normally a candidate for glottalisation. There are speakers, like Theresa May, who attempt to get every /t/ in, but it made her English sound strange and artificial.


----------



## Cork Irish

Is it possible for the slur in post 14 that I speak inferior English to kindly be removed? I accept it was just a slip of the pen.


----------



## vladv

Keith Bradford said:


> Cork Irish, can I suggest that you may have made a mistake in #7 when you write: "These are all entirely correct: those are the rules of assimilation in English pronunciation"?  I don't mean that your statement is untrue, I just suggest that it was unhelpful to use the word "rule".
> 
> To you as a scientist, these are rules of nature - phenomena which occur so often and in such a systematic way that they can be predicted.
> 
> To foreign students of English (and Russian and Chinese students seem to my reading of this forum to be particularly prone to this), there are grammar rules which are precepts to be obeyed.
> 
> In my view neither of these should be called "rules" - and if I can't allow such a well-known "rule" as _I before E, except after C_, then I'm certainly not going to agree to _/ t / changes to / p / before / m / / b / or / p /_!
> 
> I have always reckoned that if the patterns of assimilation are so universally powerful it is pointless for foreign students to learn them - their tongues will be obliged to obey willy-nilly.  And if they are not so powerful, it is unhelpful to learn them because most foreign students will already have their native accent to manage, without trying to cope with assimilation.
> 
> (Let me say in passing that I for one have never pronounced "tha*t* *m*an" as "thap man", while I do almost always say "hambag". Universal is as universal does.)


Could you please tell what " Universal is as universal does" means? Is it a play on some idiom?


----------



## Cork Irish

vladv said:


> Could you please tell what " Universal is as universal does" means? Is it a play on some idiom?


I think it means, roughly, "things are only as universal as they actually turn out to be", i.e. you can say something is universal, but if it can be shown not to be so, then it isn't.


----------



## Cork Irish

Cork Irish said:


> I think it means, roughly, "things are only as universal as they actually turn out to be", i.e. you can say something is universal, but if it can be shown not to be so, then it isn't.


It is a construction of sorts: X is as X does. So you can use it as you like. Stupid is as stupid does, etc.


----------



## Keith Bradford

vladv said:


> Could you please tell what " Universal is as universal does" means? Is it a play on some idiom?


What Cork Irish said in 21.  It's a play on the very common expression "Handsome is as handsome does": beauty is not a substitute for other virtues.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Cork Irish said:


> I correctly used the English word "rule".
> ...


I know you did, but was it _helpful_?

What do you think of my suggestion:
_... if the patterns of assimilation are so universally powerful it is pointless for foreign students to learn them - their tongues will be obliged to obey willy-nilly.  And if they are not so powerful, it is unhelpful to learn them because most foreign students will already have their native accent to manage, without trying to cope with assimilation_.​


----------



## Cork Irish

Keith Bradford said:


> I know you did, but was it _helpful_?
> 
> What do you think of my suggestion:
> _... if the patterns of assimilation are so universally powerful it is pointless for foreign students to learn them - their tongues will be obliged to obey willy-nilly.  And if they are not so powerful, it is unhelpful to learn them because most foreign students will already have their native accent to manage, without trying to cope with assimilation_.​


1. I think learners should pick a dialect to learn, eg US English, British English (RP?), or one of the other L1 variants (Irish English, etc) and stick to it.

2. Even within British English there is a difference between a standard like RP that is not spoken by many "in the wild" and a more widely found "on the ground" standard like Estuary English. There are reasons why linguists have decided not to promote EE as the new standard, chiefly because RP is internationally recognised. But if you're going to live in England and watch English soaps, you're going to have at least recognise the language as the majority of speakers of the target dialect speak it. I'm rather tickled by the video on Youtube of Prince William's wedding. The Abp of Canterbury said "to have and to hold" during the vows, /həʊld/, and Prince William repeated back /houd/, as younger RP speakers adopt more EE features.

3. I would teach assimilation to learners in terms of "understanding what speakers of colloquial English are saying", and then leave it up to them to determine to what extent they adopt widespread colloquial pronunciations.


----------



## Cork Irish

Keith Bradford said:


> What Cork Irish said in 21.  It's a play on the very common expression "Handsome is as handsome does": beauty is not a substitute for other virtues.


Yes, I was unsure of the derivation, but that is clearly where the phrase comes from.


----------



## AquisM

Cork Irish said:


> "We can all agree" - I don't. Words like "all" can be overused.


Well, I certainly meant what I said. I truly believed that we would _all_ agree that giving_ learners_ all these rules about assimilation does not help them speak or pronounce English in a more natural manner. To be honest, I am quite shocked that you don't agree.



Cork Irish said:


> "No native English speaker thinks it's more natural to pronounce bad girl as bag girl" - I do.


That's not what I said. I said "No native English speaker _speaks thinking that_ it's more natural to pronounce bad girl as bag girl". In other words, no English speaker makes a conscious effort to produce the assimilated sound.

I'm not denying the existence of assimilation in English. I'm arguing that no English speaker consciously accounts for assimilation when they produce speech. For example, no English speaker _aims _to realise "bad" as "bag" when they see the word followed by a word starting with _g_. It just happens. So why would a learner need to _learn_ these so-called "rules" and try to actively pronounce the assimilated sound?



Cork Irish said:


> I don't know what your sources on English are in Hong Kong - I am not a native speaker of Cantonese - but check out the podcast entitled "Pronunciation: Assimilation of /n/ followed by /p/" on the BBC Learning English Youtube channel. Elliot from ETJ English has many podcasts on assimilation. Check out the Youtube channels of Billie English, English Pronunciation Roadmap and Pronunciation with Emma. These are among the largest English-learning Youtube channels.


I can't imagine all of the videos on these Youtube channels deal with assimilation. If there are specific videos that are relevant to our discussion, I would appreciate some direction so I needn't be looking for a needle in a haystack.

I did watch "Pronunciation: Assimilation of /n/ followed by /p/". I don't agree with what it purports - in every example, I can distinctly hear /n/ being pronounced before a very weak /m/-like sound is produced. To my ears, Green Park certainly doesn't sound like "Greem Park". Saying that the /n/ changes to an /m/ is a simplification that could be confusing to a learner.

But all of that is irrelevant. What matters is how a learner should be conceptualising pronunciation in their mind, and in this regard, I stand by my point that it is seriously misleading to tell learners these "rules" that would make them consciously attempt to produce the assimilated sound, instead of letting the assimilation happen naturally.


----------



## Myridon

It's perfectly fine for a native speaker to say "bad girl" as "baggirl" in normal speech.  However, if asked to pronounce it slowly and carefully, a native speaker wouldn't say it that way. Therefore, it's not a "rule" that should be taught as an absolute.
A: She's a baggirl.
B: What did you say?
A: I said "she's ... a ... bad ... girl."
not
A: I said "she's ... a ... bag ... girl." 

We're thinking "bad girl" and "baggirl" is just how it comes out.  If a non-native speaker is thinking "baggirl" instead, how might that come out?  To make a not completely apt analogy: Native speakers are aiming for the target and missing by a little, but if a non-native speaker isn't even aiming for the target, where's that arrow going to go?


----------



## Cork Irish

AquisM said:


> Well, I certainly meant what I said. I truly believed that we would _all_ agree that giving_ learners_ all these rules about assimilation does not help them speak or pronounce English in a more natural manner. To be honest, I am quite shocked that you don't agree.
> 
> 
> That's not what I said. I said "No native English speaker _speaks thinking that_ it's more natural to pronounce bad girl as bag girl". In other words, no English speaker makes a conscious effort to produce the assimilated sound.
> 
> I'm not denying the existence of assimilation in English. I'm arguing that no English speaker consciously accounts for assimilation when they produce speech. For example, no English speaker _aims _to realise "bad" as "bag" when they see the word followed by a word starting with _g_. It just happens. So why would a learner need to _learn_ these so-called "rules" and try to actively pronounce the assimilated sound?
> 
> 
> I can't imagine all of the videos on these Youtube channels deal with assimilation. If there are specific videos that are relevant to our discussion, I would appreciate some direction so I needn't be looking for a needle in a haystack.
> 
> I did watch "Pronunciation: Assimilation of /n/ followed by /p/". I don't agree with what it purports - in every example, I can distinctly hear /n/ being pronounced before a very weak /m/-like sound is produced. To my ears, Green Park certainly doesn't sound like "Greem Park". Saying that the /n/ changes to an /m/ is a simplification that could be confusing to a learner.
> 
> But all of that is irrelevant. What matters is how a learner should be conceptualising pronunciation in their mind, and in this regard, I stand by my point that it is seriously misleading to tell learners these "rules" that would make them consciously attempt to produce the assimilated sound, instead of letting the assimilation happen naturally.


You can say "you don't think all those channels talk about assimilation" - without looking them up - but then that is just an off-hand comment. If you put "assimilation English pronunciation" into the Youtube search bar, you will find all of those and many more. 

You agree that assimilation happens, but then add that native speakers don't _consciously_ try to assimilate. They just don't think about it. That is very true. I don't think about assimilation when I speak. But that doesn't mean that learners don't have to try to copy native speakers of the target dialect whichever it is.

In Mandarin, two third tones produce tone sandhi. Chinese speakers don't have to do this deliberately; it is natural to them to speak like that. But if you're learning Mandarin, you will have to try to remember to do this. If you're learning Russian, and come across the word корыстный, it may be helpful to know this is /kɐˈrɨsnɨj/, with no /t/. Native speakers do this automatically.


----------



## Cork Irish

Myridon said:


> It's perfectly fine for a native speaker to say "bad girl" as "baggirl" in normal speech.  However, if asked to pronounce it slowly and carefully, a native speaker wouldn't say it that way. Therefore, it's not a "rule" that should be taught as an absolute.
> A: She's a baggirl.
> B: What did you say?
> A: I said "she's ... a ... bad ... girl."
> not
> A: I said "she's ... a ... bag ... girl."
> 
> We're thinking "bad girl" and "baggirl" is just how it comes out.  If a non-native speaker is thinking "baggirl" instead, how might that come out?  To make a not completely apt analogy: Native speakers are aiming for the target and missing by a little, but if a non-native speaker isn't even aiming for the target, where's that arrow going to go?


I agree that when you're speaking slowly, you will not assimilate. 
But when you say "Native speakers are aiming for the target and missing by a little", that is a fundamental misunderstanding of linguistics. Such a statement would see a PhD candidate knocked back in his viva voce. Linguistic standards are arbitrary and not the "target" native speakers are aiming at. Academic linguists by and large no longer accept these prescriptivist statements, and regard all dialects spoken naturally by large numbers of native speakers as "correct". I would expect Americans most of all to agree, because it is only because of that appreciation (of the fact that all dialects are correct) that North American English is accepted as correct at all, because Americans miss the RP standard by a mile--or, more to the point, by an ocean. If there is an arbitrary standard for native speakers to meet, why don't you speak like the Queen?


----------



## kentix

The "standard" is clearly how the person would pronounce the word in isolation and requires no outside authority or definition. It's a phenomenon of an individual.

If every sentence consisted of a single word there would be no such thing as assimilation. That only becomes an issue with two-word combinations and above. Assimilations of this type are accommodations to the practicalities of speaking with physical, biological structures where lips, tongues and other parts can't instantly transition from one position to another.

So during that transition state, sounds are sometimes created that don't exist in either word when pronounced alone. That's not a reason to try to say those sounds. They are part of a natural process and are organic to that process. Whatever transient m-like sound is produced when saying Green Park, that is no reason to tell someone to pronounce it as an m, unless you also tell them and teach them that it is not the full on m pronounced in isolation but is instead a vague, ephemeral m that only exists briefly and partially between two other sounds and have them practice saying that exact pseudo-m between those other exact sounds - and no one can do that, even a native speaker. As soon as you slow down to practice it, it disappears. And if it doesn't, you are saying Green Park wrong - unless you commonly pronounce green as greem (irrespective of how RP speakers say it, who are irrelevant in this context).


----------



## Cork Irish

kentix said:


> The "standard" is clearly how the person would pronounce the word in isolation and requires no outside authority or definition. It's a phenomenon of an individual.
> 
> If every sentence consisted of a single word there would be no such thing as assimilation. That only becomes an issue with two-word combinations and above. Assimilations of this type are accommodations to the practicalities of speaking with physical, biological structures where lips, tongues and other parts can't instantly transition from one position to another.
> 
> So during that transition state, sounds are sometimes created that don't exist in either word when pronounced alone. That's not a reason to try to say those sounds. They are part of a natural process and are organic to that process. Whatever transient m-like sound is produced when saying Green Park, that is no reason to tell someone to pronounce it as an m, unless you also tell them and teach them that is not the full on m pronounced in isolation but is instead a vague, ephemeral m that only exists briefly and partially between two other sounds and have them practice saying that exact pseudo-m between those other exact sounds - and no one can do that, even a native speaker. As soon as you slow down to practice it, it disappears. And if it doesn't, you are saying Green Park wrong - unless you commonly pronounce green as greem (irrespective of how RP speakers say it, who are irrelevant in this context).


Kentix all languages have assimilation in one form or another, and it is appropriate to copy native speakers of the target dialect (note: I have never said British-style assimilation is found in all dialects including NAm; I suggested the opposite, in fact, and stated that all dialects are correct, including NAm). In French "les" is pronounced without a final /z/, but in "les enfants", the /z/ appears. Do you pronounced "miss you" "miss yoo" or "mish yoo"? I would strongly advise learners to say "mish yoo".


----------



## kentix

I strongly wouldn't. I never say mish you. That's ridiculous as general advice. There is no biological imperative to add an h sound there. That's not assimilation that's just an alternate pronunciation you choose to make which is a choice not made by people where I live. That's different than Green Park, which to me if it does have an m sound is in the form _greeee(nnm)park_. That's a natural consequence of the fact that n is said with open lips and p is said with closed lips – and m is like an n, but with closed lips. So depending on the timing of the individual's mouth movements, if the nasal sound of the n is not yet complete when they close their lips to being to make the p sound the natural result will be a slight m sound – the sound of a nasal coming from closed lips.


----------



## Cork Irish

kentix said:


> that's just an alternate pronunciation you choose to make which is a choice not made by people where I live


Exactly. But you never claimed to speak British English. And I never claimed that I was talking about NAm.


----------



## kentix

That's all well and good but that's completely off topic. In the earlier examples we were not talking about choices that people were making or regional variations in pronunciation. We were talking about a single individual saying two words close together in a sentence and how that might affect the pronunciation compared to when those words are said in isolation. No, and I repeat no (which is related in that sense to your favorite word "all"), native speaker decides, "Hmmm, the word green ends in n and the word park begins with p so I'm going to say Greem Park." Biology determines the presence or absence of that emphemeral m because of the structure of the speech organs.

When I say "miss", the s sound is produced in the front of the mouth. When I see "you" the yuh sound is produced more or less in the front. To turn it into "mish you" I have to engage the back of my mouth by setting my jaw and clamping my teeth together. There is no natural transition for me from ssss to yuh that goes through the back of my mouth. However, that is something I can _choose _to do, unlike the situation with Green Park.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Cork Irish said:


> ... I would strongly advise learners to say "mish yoo".


I totally disagree. The sounds in "miss you" /sj/ and "tissue" /ʃ/ are identifiably different in the way I, and I guess millions of other people, normally speak. I can even hear the difference in my own head, which is often not the case where people deny assimilation as a matter of principle.

And then there are limiting pairs.  We know that /t/ followed by /ʃ/ frequently assimilates to the sound /tʃ/.  But we can still hear the difference between _white shoes_ and _why choose_.  I'm not an expert and I don't know which obscure phonetic symbol will be used to represent this, but it's not even as big as a glottal stop.  And yet the difference exists and a good speaker of the language will perform it almost every time.

Teaching assimilation as a "rule-to-be-followed" does not help foreign learners, and on this website that's a good enough argument for me.


----------



## Cork Irish

Keith Bradford said:


> I totally disagree. The sounds in "miss you" /sj/ and "tissue" /ʃ/ are identifiably different in the way I, and I guess millions of other people, normally speak. I can even hear the difference in my own head, which is often not the case where people deny assimilation as a matter of principle.
> 
> And then there are limiting pairs.  We know that /t/ followed by /ʃ/ frequently assimilates to the sound /tʃ/.  But we can still hear the difference between _white shoes_ and _why choose_.  I'm not an expert and I don't know which obscure phonetic symbol will be used to represent this, but it's not even as big as a glottal stop.  And yet the difference exists and a good speaker of the language will perform it almost every time.
> 
> Teaching assimilation as a "rule-to-be-followed" does not help foreign learners, and on this website that's a good enough argument for me.


You say "I totally disagree". What do you expect me to do with that? There are over 300m L1 speakers. I am one of them. You are another. Then there are a further 299,999,998.

The reason why _white shoes _and _why choose_ sound different is that the t becomes a glottal stop. The former is /wɑɪʔ ʃʉːz/ and the latter /wɑɪ t͡ʃʉːz/. There may also be a different stress pattern - you will rush to tell me there isn't, but as there are 300m native speakers, each of us has our own view. Anyhow, I have given you the transcription without marking the stress.

I have given lots of authoritative sources including the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary (written by some of the 299,999,998 speakers other than you and me). Maybe you can write to them to protest? Or just accept that there are 300m native speakers??


----------



## Cork Irish

Uncle Jack said:


> We often merge sounds when speaking fast, but no one sets out to do this.


We often merge sounds when speaking fast = there is assimilation
But no-one sets out to do this = native speakers don't even think about the IPA when speaking; the natural phonology of the language takes over

I will agree that speed of articulation is relevant. If you're a teacher in class and speaking very slower to a learner of English, you will not use assimilation. But at natural speed, all sorts of sound changes occur. 

This is why most ESL youtube channels, including the BBC Learning English site, teach assimilation. It is why major authoritative sources such as the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary teach it too. And, at the end of the day, the OP (the original poster) asked about this, and so my answers are on-topic.

It is a fundamental error in linguistics to think the orthography has primacy. Uncle Jack, that would get your PhD knocked back in a linguistics viva voce at university. QED?


----------



## kentix

You are constantly disproving a claim no one is making. It's common knowledge that assimilation occurs. It's common knowledge that it's natural. It's common knowledge that it is useful in understanding spoken language.

What people are saying, at least certainly what I am saying, is that it's foolish to teach people to _say_ Greem Park. That's not assimilation. That's a different word in its own context. The assimilation comes from the interplay of the two sounds, n and p, and the transition through what I will call the m-zone necessary for the mouth to get from one position to the other. If you just choose to change the letter you say, there is no transition, there is no assimilation in any true sense, and all you've done is invented a new word.

"Just pronounce it with a full m" removes all the subtlety of the reason it exists in the first place. Intentionally pronouncing it as a completely different word "greem" is the antithesis of assimilation.

(And who has time for those kind of rules when speaking, anyway. Are you really going to run this truth table in the middle of a sentence?

1./ t / changes to / p / before / m / / b / or / p /
as in "tha*t* *m*an", "se*t* *b*ack" and "las*t* *p*ost"

2./ d / changes to / b / before / m / / b / or / p /
as in "goo*d* *m*orning", "bloo*d* *b*ank" and "ba*d* *p*ain"

3./ n / changes to / m / before / m / / b / or / p /
as in "o*n*e *m*e", "ope*n* *b*ook" and "pe*n* *p*al"

4./ t / changes to / k / before / k / or /g/
as in "credi*t* *c*ard" and "cu*t* *g*lass"

5./ d / changes to / g / before / k / or / g /
as in "col*d* *c*all" and ba*d* *g*irl"

If someone tells me they need my credik card I will go somewhere else.)


----------



## Cork Irish

kentix said:


> You are constantly disproving a claim no one is making. It's common knowledge that assimilation occurs. It's common knowledge that it's natural. It's common knowledge that it is useful in understanding spoken language.
> 
> What people are saying, at least certainly what I am saying, is that it's foolish to teach people to _say_ Greem Park. That's not assimilation. That's a different word in its own context. The assimilation comes from the interplay of the two sounds, n and p, and the transition through what I will call the m-zone necessary for the mouth to get from one position to the other. If you just choose to change the letter you say, there is no transition, there is no assimilation in any true sense, and all you've done is invented a new word.
> 
> "Just pronounce it with a full m" removes all the subtlety of the reason it exists in the first place. Intentionally pronouncing it as a completely different word "greem" is the antithesis of assimilation.
> 
> (And who has time for those kind of rules when speaking, anyway. Are you really going to run this truth table in the middle of a sentence?
> 
> 1./ t / changes to / p / before / m / / b / or / p /
> as in "tha*t* *m*an", "se*t* *b*ack" and "las*t* *p*ost"
> 
> 2./ d / changes to / b / before / m / / b / or / p /
> as in "goo*d* *m*orning", "bloo*d* *b*ank" and "ba*d* *p*ain"
> 
> 3./ n / changes to / m / before / m / / b / or / p /
> as in "o*n*e *m*e", "ope*n* *b*ook" and "pe*n* *p*al"
> 
> 4./ t / changes to / k / before / k / or /g/
> as in "credi*t* *c*ard" and "cu*t* *g*lass"
> 
> 5./ d / changes to / g / before / k / or / g /
> as in "col*d* *c*all" and ba*d* *g*irl"
> 
> If someone tells me they need my credik card I will go somewhere else.)


No, if you assimilate (it's not compulsory), then in Green Park there is a full /m/. You are using non-scientific terms. If the lips are closed and the nasal passage is open, it's an /m/. If you go on the youglish website (where you can find Youtube pronunciations of numerous words in natural English) and enter "credit card" and press on UK... guess what pronunciation you hear? (hint!)


----------



## dojibear

Cork Irish said:


> Is it possible for the slur in post 14 that I speak inferior English to kindly be removed? I accept it was just a slip of the pen.


Certainly, if you can find "you" anywhere in that comment. It is neither stated nor implied that "you speak inferior English". The discussion was about 1 billion people, not "you". The recommendation was for students learning English, not for fluent speakers thereof. So "you" was neither the subject of nor that target of the comment.

The author has no idea "how you speak", so cannot label it or evaluate it.


----------



## PaulQ

vladv said:


> 1./ t / changes to / p / before / m / / b / or / p /
> as in "tha*t* *m*an", "se*t* *b*ack" and "las*t* *p*ost"


There is no "p" in "tha*t* *m*an" or "se*t* *b*ack"

I would say "/ t /, *may change* to */?/ *(a glottal stop)* or be unreleased* before / m / / b / or / p / as in "tha*t* *m*an", "se*t* *b*ack" "we*t p*avement" *and be omitted entirely as in* "las*t* *p*ost".


----------



## kentix

The test is if you slow down what sound do you hear. If you slow down and hear the words greem and park then you're doing it wrong. There is no word greem. There is a physical phenomenon where a combination of original sounds can take on a new sound. It's a dynamic process, not a static one. You aren't selecting m, you are trying to optimize the transition between two sounds to maintain speed and smooth flow. In that process something "gives", placing the mouth in a position not indicated by the spelling. As you said, it doesn't always happen. But that's not because you decided not to say m. It's because of the timing of the complex movements your mouth makes.

You're going (in the idealized case) directly from 1 to 2:
1) Open lips, nasal tone (n) => 2) closed lips, no airflow (beginning of the p)

But it's the real world so the change is not instantaneous. You have to transition from one to the other.

Two things are changing and they can change in either order

A.
1) Open lips, nasal tone => 2) closed lips, nasal tone => 3) closed lips, no airflow

OR

B.
1) Open lips, nasal tone => 2) open lips, no airflow => 3) closed lips, no airflow

Only A will produce an m sound. B will not. It's much easier to cut off the airflow with a longer pause. That's why when it's pronounced slowly it's so easy to see that it's the word green, because there is no overlap of airflow with closed lips. When sped up, it's much harder to stop the airflow completely before the lips start moving on to the next letter/sound. For people, who accomplish that anyway - no m sound. For those whose timing is the other way around, there is a naturally produced m sound - because the movements needed to produce one sound have blended together with the movements needed to produce the other. They have assimilated into the same time segment. They aren't clearly separated.

Yes, in certain people the n sound can be faint. Maybe the m predominates. But the m is not the target sound. The m is a byproduct of the n. The mind thinks n, goes to n, but passes through m on the way to p because that's one way the mouth can work, when the timing overlaps. Nobody is targeting m when saying Green Park. It is not equivalent to saying employ.

Wikipedia:
Assimilation occurs in two different types: complete assimilation, in which the sound affected by assimilation becomes exactly the same as the sound causing assimilation, *and partial assimilation, in which the sound becomes the same in one or more features but remains different in other features.*​
The following letter, p, is made with closed lips. When an n is said with closed lips it transforms to an m. That's the partial assimilation. But it's only partial because the p is not a voiced nasal. The root of that is the n in green. Without the n, the m has no reason to exist. It's not "just an m". It's an m derived from the transition from n to p. (For instance there is no m in the transition from n to t. T is voiceless, like p, but it's not pronounced with the lips together.)

If it wasn't, it could be Greep Park, or Greef Park or Gree Park.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Cork Irish said:


> ... as there are 300m native speakers, each of us has our own view...


This I endorse.  But we can't move from that and teach one view as a "rule".  That is my only point.

Perhaps in essence we're dealing with different meanings of the word "rule".  I quote from WordReference Random House Unabridged Dictionary of American English © 2021:

*a principle or regulation* governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.:the rules of chess.
the code of regulations observed by a religious order or congregation:the Franciscan rule.
*the customary or normal circumstance*, occurrence, manner, practice, quality, etc.:
Our readers are often looking for no1.  We should not mislead them by offering no.3 when it is, as you say, only partial


----------



## Cagey

This thread has run its course.  Differing points of view have been expressed and explained. 
It is a question that won't be resolved by a consensus answer. 

People who are interested should read the thread and decide which position they find most persuasive, or which suits their purposes. 

This thread is closed. 

Thank you to everyone who participated. 

Cagey,
moderator


----------

