# pronunciation - schwa ə



## dgg

Hello everybody,

 This phoneme chase me. According to english phonetic theory, this phoneme sometimes sounds like "a" or like "e" (britanish english, because american english, i think is different).

 1-> "Today". This "o" is represented with phoneme ə and it sounds like "o".
 2-> "Cinema". This "e" is represented with phoneme ə and it sounds like "e".
 3-> "together". This "e" is represented with phoneme ə and it sounds like "a".

 Is on together possible e+r sounds like a?. is "r" so soft that i am not able to hear "r"?. I only hear a soft "a". 

 The same problem i have with "for (fo:') " and "more (mo:')". I am not able to hear the "r" when english native speak quick, i only hear "fo:".

 Another problem for me is i am not able to distinghish the phoneme "^" from "ə" on this website (oupchina.com.hk/dict/phonetic/home.html). However, when i heard "cup" and "cinema" i am able to see the difference.

 When i hear american english is very easy to hear "r" in together and for but when i hear britanish english is very difficult for me. So, Can anyone explain me all of mess, please?

 Thank you very much


----------



## Soy Yo

In some dialects of the U.S., you don't exactly hear "r" in "for" and "more"...the "r" seems to be converted to somehing of a glide sound.  I can't explain it.

What on uhth, foah?  (What on earth for?)


----------



## FlorenceC140

Yes, certain British english is very differently pronounced. The r's are pretty much silent when at the end of the word. You will find this here in the US also when speaking to people from the Northeast. My family has strong accents. What they do is like in together, the r is silent, but with other words without an r, they seem to add one. (my family does this, New Yorkers) For Instance, Law and Order . . . it's pronounced "Lawr and Order" because there are 2 vowels sounds in a row. I'm not from Europe, so this is best explanation I can give you. Quizas esperemos por mas repuestas.


----------



## Outsider

Some thoughts:

- I'm sorry to say that the schwa(s) of English are pronounced neither like "e", nor like "a", nor like "o" (although they are often spelled that way). They are totally different sounds which you must learn anew.

- The term "schwa" can be ambiguous. Different sounds are sometimes called "schwas".

- Some dialects of English have two schwa sounds ("roses" and "Rosa's" are pronounced differently), others have only one ("roses" and "Rosa's" are pronounced the same way).


----------



## dgg

Ok outsider, i know they don't sound like a, e and o. But i typed this only like a reference or example.


----------



## mazbook

Outsider has it correct, but I might expand a little.  "roses" and "Rosa's" is a perfect example.  Here, I will be writing about U.S. English pronunciation—ONLY.  When "roses" and "Rosa's" is pronounced differently, the "e" (schwa) in "roses" is pronounced _*almost exactly*_ like the standard Spanish "e", which I would write phonetically as "eh" and the "a" in "Rosa's" is pronounced like the "u" in cup, which I would write phonetically as "uh" and has *no* equivalent in Spanish (that I know off).   When the two words are pronounced the same, the "e" in "roses" and the "a" in "Rosa's" are both pronounced like the "u" in cup.

In "Standard" U.S. English, the final "r" (or "re") is always (¿nearly always?) pronounced and sounds almost the same as the Spanish "r" (but never rolled or trilled).  In Standard British English and some very local U.S. English dialects, the final "r" is nearly elided (silent) or pronounced as Soy Yo says (a non-vocalized "h"), which I would write phonetically as "ah" like Soy Yo.

One note:  If you, or the English speakers you know, pronounce the "u" in "cup" the same as the Spanish "u", the only other example I can immediately give is the "u" in "luck" and even that example could be wrong in some dialects of English.  One thing is certain, to me, the "u" in "cup" or "luck" is NOT the Spanish "u".

Saludos


----------



## Soy Yo

I agree with mazbook.    Very well explained.

The U in "cup" is not the same as the Spanish "u" which is closer to the vowl sound (*not the same as but close to the vowel sound*) in crew, you, moo, and do.


----------



## aurilla

The schwa *(http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/290/ipa/schwa.gif)* is very noticeable in English spoken by New Yorkers. It is nasal in nature, and sounds like "ooh-ah", in Spanish: "u-a".
Example: The word "what" is usually pronounced "wat". A native of New York or New Jersey will pronounce it "wooh-at".
"Want" usually pronounced "wont", is pronounced "woo-ant". 
the typical mafioso in the movies speaks English with a strong schwa.

*Schwa* generally appears in syllables that are unstressed, that is, that receive much less emphasis than other syllables in the word. When students transcribe, they often break a word up and give each part equal emphasis, so only caret will appear. To hear the schwa, you have to say the word at fairly normal speed, not break it up, and give it its normal rhythm (strong/weak emphasis pattern).
Word with schwa (underlined):
Samantha
enough (when the 'e' is not pronounced like the vowel of 'seat')
suppose


----------



## mazbook

¡Muchisimas gracias Soy Yo!  After recently working several months writing a Mexican Spanish pronunciation guide for speakers of "Standard" (western) U.S. English, it's not too difficult to turn it around for English for Spanish speakers (which I've been doing informally for my Spanish speaking family and friends for some time).  The only thing that really gives me a lot of trouble is that *damn schwa.  *It just doesn't seem to have ANY equivalent in Spanish.

I know that it shouldn't have taken me several months to write just a pronunciation guide, but when you have a whole *group *of bilingual editors, it's hard to satisfy everyone.  I finally had to resort to footnotes that I called "Notes for perfectionists" to get everyone satisfied.   For anyone interested in the final result just email me at mazbook@yahoo.com and I'll be happy to email you a copy.

Saludos desde Mazatlán


----------



## dgg

Ok,

 I understand. But then, is schwa only a phonetic symbol can respresent several sounds like (aprox:a, aprox:e, aprox:u ...? In addition, is possible does schwa sound different for different english native places?. For instance, i am living in England now, and when i hear to say to my flate mate (eglish native) "know" i hear "aprox: knou" but when this is said for another english friend i hear "aprox: kneou". What one must i learn? What do you recommend me to do in this situation?.

 Thank you very much.


----------



## aurilla

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> In some dialects of the U.S., you don't exactly hear "r" in "for" and "more"...the "r" seems to be converted to somehing of a glide sound. I can't explain it.
> 
> What on uhth, foah? (What on earth for?)


 
This is especially true among natives of Massachusetts, particularly the Boston area. You notice when they say "car" they will pronounce it "cah", "bar" is "bah", "far" is "fah", etc.  President Kennedy had this accent, and so does the TV chef Emeril.


----------



## Txiri

Voy a ver si puedo "describir" el sonido de la schwa en el inglés americano.

La vocal que más se aproxima en español sería la "e".

Por un momento, haz los sonidos de las cinco vocales en español, lentamente, inmovilízalas en tu boca, y fíjate cómo las enuncias en la boca, si dejas la boca abierta, en qué posición quedan los dientes, la lengua, los labios. Cuando formas la o, notarás que tus labios se quedan en una posición redondeada, la u española, un poco como si estuvieras silbando.

Si sonríes un poco esforzadamente al enunciar la e española,para pasar a la schwa ahora, deja que los labios se relajen, las comisuras de los labios se relajan y se acercan un poquitín, la tensión de la boca ahí justo a la apertura de la garganta se relaja, y bajas el sonido producido con las cuerdas vocales, de la garganta, para la e, hasta la parte del cuello donde los hombres tienen la nuez. Los labios están abiertos un poco, pero relajados, no hay músculos tensos y efectivamente este aspecto de relajado es lo que caracteriza este sonido, y es el motivo por ser la vocal de mayor incidencia en el inglés (americano). Somos perezosos. 

Como cualquier otro sonido y conforme a las "leyes" de la lingüística, la schwa se ve influída-- un poco -- por los sonidos que le anteceden y siguen, pero no mucho, y siempre es un sonido relajado, y "bajo" en la garganta.

Espero que comprendas algo de lo que procuro describir aquí ;>)


----------



## moirag

I sometimes think the easiest way to try to pronounce the schwa is.....not to pronounce it. Try saying "cn" for "can", "tday" for "today" etc, and you should come pretty close to the native pronunciation of the schwa. Don't worry too much about the difference between the schwa and "u" in "cup" - I'm sure most native speakers can't distinguish them. And you often don't distinguish the "r" in the English of England ( in Scotland it's different) simply because the English really are not pronouncing it. At the end of a word we wouldn't pronounce an "r" unless it's followed by a vowel, e.g. "car engine". But normally "car" is just "caaaa". As for the pronunciation of "know", it's just an example but, yes, there are a lot of differences in the pronunciation of vowels and dipthongs according to geographical area, even within short distances in the UK and, of course, between different countries where English is the mother tongue.


----------



## dgg

heyy!!! es cierto!!! ja ja ja ja... me pongo feísimo para decirla pero me sale bastante parecido... ja ja ja ja...ufff, pero para que esto me salga de forma natural me va a costar "tela marinera"-->expresión española que significa "mucho esfuerzo"

 Muchísssssssimas gracias.


----------



## ic/ego

Ok, I have to disagree with some of what's been said here.  In my phonetics classes in college, we learned that English has two sounds that are called schwa, one in the word *cup* and one in the first syllable of *about*.  Both are central vowels, meaning they are pronounced with the tongue in a central position, with the mouth about half-open.  The first schwa (in the word *cup*) occurs only in accented syllables.  It has no equivalent in Spanish.  The second schwa (in the word *about*) abounds in English.  It is roughly equivalent to the final *a *in Spanish words (hermana, roja, etc.).  It may be spelled with any vowel.

As for the letter 'r', most Americans always pronounce it.  In Britain, it is usually not pronounced at the end of words.  It is also not pronounced at the end of a syllable if the next syllable begins with a consonant.  The only time an 'r' is pronounced at the end of a word in England is when the next word begins with a vowel.  Also, many speakers in England add an 'r' to a word that ends in a vowel if the next word begins with a vowel.  ("The idear is" instead of "The idea is").


----------



## ic/ego

Sorry, one more thing.  In England, a syllable spelled "er" or pronounced by Americans that way is pronounced as an unaccented schwa.


----------



## Txiri

ic/ego said:
			
		

> Ok, I have to disagree with some of what's been said here. In my phonetics classes in college, we learned that English has two sounds that are called schwa, one in the word *cup* and one in the first syllable of *about*.


 
I didn´t study English phonetics in the university, only Spanish phonetics ... but we did discuss at some point, the schwa in grade school.  I find this curious, I´m not disputing it, but curious, because the short u of "cup" (uh) was the sound we used to write phonetically as a u, with the curved   )    symbol sitting horizontally over the vowel, pointing upwards.  Back then (ages ago), the vowels were described as all having long and short forms, and this point served to underscore why some words double the consonant when forming the gerund, and others, not.  So, it surprises me to read that the short u of cup is considered a schwa.  Sorry if that sounds dumb!  but the approaches to teaching English in grade schools and high schools do seem to undergo radical changes about every 20 years ...

I think (was it Moirag?) that an excellent way to describe this sound is to imagine that there´s not even a vowel there, "today", "t´day"


----------



## mazbook

Hola dgg, Basically, the schwa *is *just a phonetic symbol, *but *it actually only represents the "u" in "cup" sound.  The "e" sound like the Spanish "e" is much less common.  If you always pronounced it like the "u" in "cup" you would be correct nearly all the time, and in most dialects, all of the time.

About the pronounciation of "know":  those are differences in dialect, which English, particularly British English, has many more of than Spanish.  Think of it as similar to the ceceo and seseo pronunciations in Spanish or the different pronunciations of "ll" in Spanish.  DON'T worry about it!  Whichever way you decide to pronounce it will be understood by all English speakers.

Good luck with your English.  Here's a little help:



			
				dgg said:
			
		

> I understand. But then, is schwa only a phonetic symbol that can respresent several sounds like (aprox:a, aprox:e, aprox:u ...? (Not really, see above)  In addition, is it possible does that schwa sounds different for different english native places? (Yes). For instance, I am living in England now, and when I hear to say to my flate mate(English native) say "know", I hear "aprox: knou", but when this is said for by another English friend, I hear "aprox: kneou". What Which one must I learn? What do you recommend that me I to do in this situation?.


Saludos desde Mazatlán


----------



## mazbook

Hola ic/ego





			
				ic/ego said:
			
		

> Ok, I have to disagree with some of what's been said here. In my phonetics classes in college, we learned that English has two sounds that are called schwa, one in the word *cup* and one in the first syllable of *about*.


I'm not certain where in the U.S. you're from or where you went to college, but in *my *area of the U.S. (Rocky Mountain west), the "u" in "cup" and the "a" in "about" are pronounced *exactly the same.*

Saludos desde Mazatlán

PS - from the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (emphasis, mine):





> schwa (shwä), n. Phonet.
> 1.    the mid-central, neutral vowel sound typically occurring in *unstressed* syllables in English, however spelled, as the sound of a in alone and sofa, e in system, i in easily, o in gallop, u in circus.


----------



## ic/ego

Txiri said:
			
		

> So, it surprises me to read that the short u of cup is considered a schwa.


 
Sorry, it may be incorrect to call them both schwas.  

Interestingly, however, I studied linguistics precisely in the Mountain West (Utah).  Since the sound in *cup* and the "a" in *about* never occur in the same environment (the first only in accented syllables and the second only in unaccented syllables), they may sound the same to a native ear, just as the "t" in *today* sounds the same as the "t" in *stop* to a native, even though the first is aspirated (pronounced with a puff of air) and the second isn't.  In a number of languages, those are considered two different sounds.  In any case, the sound in *cup* and the sound in *about* are represented by two different phonetic symbols by linguists.  The first looks like ^ and the second like the familiar upside-down e (the schwa).


----------



## dgg

what a mess!!!


----------



## mazbook

Hola ic/ego,  I agree, the "t" in "today" and the "t" in "stop" are two different sounds.  And yes, technically the "u" in "cup" is not a schwa...I never said it was.  I just used the "u" in "cup" (which dgg had already used) as a good example of the usual schwa *sound*, which it is.  It's not comparable to the "t" sounds as it isn't aspirated or non-aspirated in any word.

Saludos


----------



## mazbook

Hey dgg, *not* a mess.  Just the normal sort of discussion in WR forums that is common when two (or more) folks are using different words to mean the same thing. Happens all the time. 

Saludos


----------



## dgg

Hello again,

 if you hear "away" and "about" on this web site, you can notice the first sounds like "spanish aprox: oway" and the second sounds "spanish aprox: about". Then, i can't understand why the schwa has two sounds basically. I am spanish and i obviously can't be like you, but for me:

 today (o-->schwa), about (a-->schwa), away (firs o-->schwa), cinema (e-->schwa) and together (final e: --> schwa) sounds different. So, in summary, the schwa has five different sounds at least. Perhaps, for american people are not so, but if you hear these words on actor.loquendo.com/actordemo/default.asp?voice=Kate, i think, you will notice this i am telling. Perhaps, my ear is not fine, this is not so and i am a insane man .

PD: The URL doesn't have http because i haven't wrote 30 posts. From this moment i will can do it as this is the number 30,


----------



## mazbook

dgg, No, you're *not* insane.  Although the final "er" is not technically a schwa, in this British pronunciation it sounds like one because the "r" is elided.  The other "differences" you are hearing are purely intonation and rythm differences, *not* true pronunciation differences.  If you listen to all five different English voices, you'll see that the intonation of the English is quite different from speaker to speaker, but the schwas are all the same (excluding together for the U.S. speakers).  

*You're trying too hard! * Take it easy and listen for the similarities instead of the differences.  Think of listening to a castellaño and a person from Andalusia.

Saludos


----------



## Outsider

dgg said:
			
		

> Ok,
> 
> I understand. But then, is schwa only a phonetic symbol can respresent several sounds like (aprox:a, aprox:e, aprox:u ...? In addition, is possible does schwa sound different for different english native places?. For instance, i am living in England now, and when i hear to say to my flate mate (eglish native) "know" i hear "aprox: knou" but when this is said for another english friend i hear "aprox: kneou". What one must i learn? What do you recommend me to do in this situation?.
> 
> Thank you very much.


Dgg, fíjese en el cuadro aquí. Las vocales del español quedarían todas en los bordes del cuadro. Pero en inglés hay algunas que están dentro del cuadro. Las que están sobre la linea central son las que normalmente se llaman "schwa".

Esto no le enseñará a pronunciarlas, pero espero que le dé una idea de cómo un "schwa" difiere de las vocales que conoce del español. Lea también esto.

P.S. Y lea este sitio, para ver cómo se pronuncian los "schwas". Escoja la lengua inglesa, después clique en "vowels", "monophthongs", "central". Los cuatro sonidos que vee allá son los "schwas" (dos de ellos son variantes que ocurren antes de "r").

Espero que ayude.


----------



## Outsider

You can listen to the main vowel sounds here. Although some of the recordings are bad, I think you can hear fair approximations to the schwas of English.


----------



## Andre~

Sigo con muchas dudas...¿schwa es como un "uh"?...si fuese así entonces jamás debería sonar como "e" española...¿es siempre este sonido?:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uh

Otra cosa, ¿en "business" la "e" es un schwa o es una e española? [Para ser específico mi pregunta es del inglés americano]


----------



## grahamcracker

dgg said:


> Ok,
> 
> I understand. But then, is schwa only a phonetic symbol can respresent several sounds like (aprox:a, aprox:e, aprox:u ...? In addition, is possible does schwa sound different for different english native places?. For instance, i am living in England now, and when i hear to say to my flate mate (eglish native) "know" i hear "aprox: knou" but when this is said for another english friend i hear "aprox: kneou". What one must i learn? What do you recommend me to do in this situation?.
> 
> Thank you very much.


Unfortunately, that is the problem with the schwa. As for how to pronounce it in different words, it really depends on the dialect. You might have to pick a dialect and stick with it. English speakers who move around the country during their lifetimes may pronounce it differently wherever they live for just that reason--and in different words.


----------



## grahamcracker

Andre~ said:


> Sigo con muchas dudas...¿schwa es como un "uh"?...si fuese así entonces jamás debería sonar como "e" española...¿es siempre este sonido?:
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uh
> 
> Otra cosa, ¿en "business" la "e" es un schwa o es una e española? [Para ser específico mi pregunta es del inglés americano]



Ha, ha. Speaking of "business", I noticed an advertisement today which changed the spelling of business to "bizzyness" and used it as part of the logo on their company title.


----------



## L'Inconnu

Actually I had similar problems trying to understand French when I was in Canada. To make a long story short, although most French vowels are similar to English ones, some simply don't exist in the English language. And to make matters worse, pronunciation varies considerably between countries and also regionally within a country, just like it does in the English speaking world. So how do you get around this problem? Well, it simply would do no good to say pronounce such and such a vowel like Ø, since, obviously, you have to hear it.  

So, after about a month of getting nowhere, one day, while watching a French program on TV, I decided to turn on the subtitles for the hearing impaired. These were written in French, of course, but I was flabbergasted when I finally realized what they were saying. In fact, if you get movies from the internet and play them on your computer, you should be able to watch the movie with English subtitles. There are entire websites devoted to providing people with subtitles to many popular movies in various languages. These are free of charge, but they are usually made by amateurs. To this very day I still use French subs (not English ones) when I look at French movies. 

The internet also allows you to look at TV programing from different parts of the world, even Japan if you like. This gives you a chance to get used to different accents. People in Spain sound very different than Latin Americans from my perspective. But Spanish accents deal more with consonants rather than vowels. The use of the 'ch' sound in many words spelled with a 'c', for example. The now you see it, now you don't 's'. The confusion between 'b' and 'v', etc. 

One last suggestion is to use the internet to get lyrics to your favorite songs. I found this helped a lot. French Canadian pop artists make it a habit to spell the words out exactly as they are sung, very much like we spell out words like 'wanna' and 'gonna' instead of 'want to' and 'going to'. 

So, to sum it up, the basic strategy is to have a bonafide text that matches as closely as possible, word for word, to what a speaker is saying. Then, all you have to do is compare the way the word is spelled to its actual pronunciation. You will learn quite a few new English words while you are at it.


----------



## Andre~

Duda: La schwa siempre la tengo que intentar pronunciar como un "uh" o sea, principalmente entre a y o?...porque en otras palabras suena muy muy parecido a la "e" española, como en "childr*e*n"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/children

¿O también es un "uh"?


----------



## L'Inconnu

Andre~ said:


> Duda: La schwa siempre la tengo que intentar pronunciar como un "uh" o sea, principalmente entre a y o?...porque en otras palabras suena muy muy parecido a la "e" española, como en "childr*e*n"
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/children
> 
> ¿O también es un "uh"?




That's because different English speakers have different accents. I pronounce <the> using a schwa, but others pronounce it using the Spanish <i>, as if it were spelled <thee>. Interestingly, I would pronounce <the> like <thee> if you told me to say the word <the>. But in normal conversation I use the schwa. The same goes for a word like <omelette>. If I pronounce the word carefully, I drop the first <e> altogether. The second <e> I pronounce like the <e> in get. You would hear something like <om let>. Whereas, in normal conversation most speakers drop the first <e>, but they pronounce the second <e> like a schwa or like the <i> in <it>. The <o>, btw, is closer to the <a> in father than the Spanish <o>.  

The point is, the pronunciation key is only a guide, not a fixed rule. It can't be a fixed rule, because accents very a great deal among English speakers even in the same country. THAT was the problem I had in Quebec. There wasn't any set way to pronounce any given word, and it confused me ROYALLY.

Comparing French to Spanish, I reached the following conclusion. French is about a 'buncha' (bunch of = muchas) crazy f'uktup vowels, and Spanish is about a 'buncha' (bunch of) screwed up consonants.


----------



## Andre~

Muchas gracias. Lo que me dices es muy interesante, ahora mi duda es si en general, el sonido schwa siempre es un "uh", en el cual no debería parecerse (mucho) a la "e" española...ejemplo:

La palabra happ*e*n, he visto que la "e" es un schwa pero se parece mucho a la "e" española...¿realmente en un schwa?


----------



## L'Inconnu

dgg said:


> Hello everybody,
> 
> This phoneme chase me. According to english phonetic theory, this phoneme sometimes sounds like "a" or like "e" (britanish english, because american english, i think is different).
> 
> 1-> "Today". This "o" is represented with phoneme ə and it sounds like "o".
> 2-> "Cinema". This "e" is represented with phoneme ə and it sounds like "e".
> 3-> "together". This "e" is represented with phoneme ə and it sounds like "a".
> 
> Is on together possible e+r sounds like a?. is "r" so soft that i am not able to hear "r"?. I only hear a soft "a".
> 
> The same problem i have with "for (fo:') " and "more (mo:')". I am not able to hear the "r" when english native speak quick, i only hear "fo:".
> 
> Another problem for me is i am not able to distinghish the phoneme "^" from "ə" on this website (oupchina.com.hk/dict/phonetic/home.html). However, when i heard "cup" and "cinema" i am able to see the difference.
> 
> When i hear american english is very easy to hear "r" in together and for but when i hear britanish english is very difficult for me. So, Can anyone explain me all of mess, please?
> 
> Thank you very much



Cuando un hablante de inglés se expresa muy cuidadosamente, pronunciará cualquiera vocal siguiendo un estándar determinado, dependiente de su tono. Sin embargo, durante la conversación normal, puede pronunciar la misma vocal muy diferente, especialmente cuando habla muy rápidamente. La palabra <the> en inglés, por ejemplo. Si un maestro demostrara cómo pronunciarla correctamente, pronunciaría la letra <e> en una manera igual que la letra <i> en español. Pero, cuando la palabra <the> se usa en el contexto de una frase completa, la letra <e> se pronuncia siempre como el schwa. El schwa, de mi punta de vista, es un sonido neutral y atonal que hace un hablante de inglés cuando no se esfuerza por pronunciar una vocal más distinta.


----------



## luo.mai

cup: /kʌp/
about: /əˈbaʊt/ 

Where "Rosa's" and "roses" differ, "Rosa's" will be /ˈroʊzəz/, perhaps bordering on /'roʊzʌz/, while "roses" will be closer to /'roʊzɪz/.

English has lots of lax vowels, but they do not all correspond to the schwa (/ə/).


----------



## Andre~

¿La schwa también puede ser pronunciada como "e" española en los siguientes casos?:

Busin*e*ss, probl*e*m, fairn*e*ss, happ*e*n, paym*e*nt


----------



## L'Inconnu

Andre~ said:


> ¿La schwa también puede ser pronunciada como "e" española en los siguientes casos?:
> 
> Busin*e*ss, probl*e*m, fairn*e*ss, happ*e*n, paym*e*nt



Yes, English speakers sometimes pronounce the letter <e> like Spanish speakers do, but in those cases the letter <e> would not be a schwa. The schwa corresponds to cases where a letter is NOT pronounced distinctly. What I'm saying is that there are two ways an English speaker pronounces a vowel. 1) The way he does when he/she is articulating very carefully, and 2) the way he/she does in normal speech. When an English speaker pronounces vowels very carefully, many of them will be pronounced the same way Spanish vowels are. But, in practice he/she is not usually as careful, and the vowels change into different sounds. The schwa is the least most distinct of all the sounds.

<buisness> and <fairness> are two words where the <e> would have a similar pronounciation to a Spanish <e>, IF the speaker was articulating very carefully. If he/she was speaking rapidly, they would sound more like the <i> in <bit> or the schwa.


----------



## fre0009

Puede que este blog te ayude:

http://pronunciaringles.com/tag/ə/


----------



## edw

La schwa es mucho más fácil de lo que en principio parece. Pero para llegar a esa conclusión primero necesitamos los hispanohablantes superar la perplejidad que nos provoca que una lengua depende de un sonido tan "oscuro". 



Nosotros en español estamos acostumbrado a cinco vocales puras, que percibimos siempre del mismo modo. En inglés, no pasa lo mismo. Y el extremo opuesto a  una vocal pura, es precisamente la schwa. Producirla es realmente muy fácil: ponte frente a un espejo y menciona cuidadosamente de una en una las cinco vocales españolas: a, e, i, o, u. Nota cómo cambia la posición de los labios para decir cada vocal. Di una "a" española: mira cómo queda tu lengua descansado "in the bottom of the mouth". Mantén esa misma posición de la "a", pero cierra la boca casi completamente. Ahora deja salir aire, produciendo un sonido casi exclusivamente con tu laringe. Esa es la schwa. La lengua relajada, los labios casi cerrados y un sonido corto, indistinto que sale de la laringe. 

Ahora bien, identificado el sonido de la schwa. Hay que entender por qué se usa tanto en inglés. En realidad, aparece prácticamente en todas las palabras inglesas. Eso es así, porque la pronunciación inglesa está basada en un contraste entre sílabas acentuadas y no acentuadas. Las sílabas acentuadas se pronuncian de manera clara y larga, y las no acentuadas de manera corta, rápida e indistinta. En esas sílabas no acentuadas generalmente es dónde se usa la schwa. Y como todas las palabras tienen sílabas no acentuadas, pues por eso es que la schwa es tan común en la lengua inglesa. 

Yo esto no lo entendí hasta que me familiaricé un poco con los "stress patterns" del inglés. Eso aclara mucho sobre cómo se comporta la schwa en esta lengua. 

Y para hacerte la vida más cómoda, parte del hecho de que la schwa se pronuncia siempre de la misma manera indistinta. En realidad, nunca suena como "e", o una "o", o una "u". Es un sonido que su valor precisamente está en no parecerse a esos: es un sonido indistinto, de una vocal no formada, casi ausente. 

Hope this helps.


----------

