# pronunciation: re-  [eg retell vs refresh]



## tosamja

I have just realized that the prefix "re" is sometimes pronounced as /ri/ (e.g. recombine, recommence, reconsider, ...), and sometimes as /_rɛ_/ (e.g. recommend, reconcile, ...).

Is there any logic behind or is it totally random as so many things in the language?

Does it ever happen to native speakers to get confused in some cases, e.g. to say _/ˌrikəˈmɛnd/ _instead of_ /ˌrɛkəˈmɛnd/ ?

_


----------



## Glenfarclas

When the prefix means "again, anew", then it tends to be prounounced with a long e (/ri/).  When it carries other meanings (usually as an intensifier or signifying "back, backwards"), then it tends to be pronounced with a short e or schwa.


----------



## tosamja

Thank you for the answer. This sounds like a reasonable rule of thumb that works quite often. There are however cases that do not seem to be explicable in that way (at least not straightforwardly), e.g. renowned or renounce.


----------



## JamesM

If you're looking for a rule in English that is foolproof, you will be looking for a long, long time.    English is full of exceptions. 

I'm not sure Glenfarclas' rule of thumb works for me.  It doesn't seem to handle quite a few words with multiple meanings, like 'reverse' (turn back/move back), 'replace' (place back in its original spot), 'retain' (hold back).   We also have words like "recreation", which technically means "create anew", but is pronounced "rec-ree-ay-shun", not "ree-cree-ay-shun".

I'm not aware of a rule of thumb that works well for this particular set of initial characters in a word.


----------



## Glenfarclas

JamesM said:


> I'm not sure Glenfarclas' rule of thumb works for me.  It doesn't seem to handle quite a few words with multiple meanings, like 'reverse' (turn back/move back), 'replace' (place back in its original spot), 'retain' (hold back).   We also have words like "recreation", which technically means "create anew", but is pronounced "rec-ree-ay-shun", not "ree-cree-ay-shun".



I pronounce all of those words as the rule of thumb I stated would indicate.  (Do you really say ree-verse or ree-tain?)  As to "recreation," it means "create anew" eymologically, but not in reality.


----------



## JamesM

Yes, I say "ree-verse" and "ree-tain", even though the accent is on the second syllable.  I don't say "ruh/reh-verse" or "ruh/reh-tain'.  Do you?

The WordReference dictionary shows a long "e" sound in both of those words, I believe.

The first vowel in "retain" is nothing like the schwa sound I use in "rattan" or the short "e" sound in "recommend".

Would you say "The judge ruh-versed his ruling?"  If anything, it drifts to a short "i" sound for me but it's based on a long "e".


----------



## Glenfarclas

JamesM said:


> Yes, I say "ree-verse" and "ree-tain", even though the accent is on the second syllable.  I don't say "ruh/reh-verse" or "ruh/reh-tain'.  Do you?



I certainly do; and what's more, I would consider _REE-tain_ to sound about as odd as those people who say _POE-lice_ for "police."  Merriam-Webster, incidentally, gives \ri-ˈtān\ and \ri-ˈvərs\ as the only pronunciations of those words.


----------



## JamesM

And I'm not saying "REE-verse".  I said the accent was on the second syllable.


----------



## Glenfarclas

JamesM said:


> And I'm not saying "REE-verse".  I said the accent was on the second syllable.



You're right, I see where you said that.  Well, the same thing for "ree-VERSE."  It just sounds over-pronounced to me.  I don't say those words that way, and I'm pretty sure I don't know anybody else who does, either.


----------



## JamesM

Glenfarclas said:


> Merriam-Webster, incidentally, gives \ri-ˈtān\ and \ri-ˈvərs\ as the only pronunciations of those words.



Which is the short "i" sound I spoke about, not the long "e" or schwa you mentioned.


----------



## JamesM

Glenfarclas said:


> You're right, I see where you said that.  Well, the same thing for "ree-VERSE."  It just sounds over-pronounced to me.  I don't say those words that way, and I'm pretty sure I don't know anybody else who does, either.



Do you say "ruh-ten-tion"?  Perhaps it's regional.  I wouldn't,  I would say something between a long "e" and and a short "i".

Have you listened to the Merriam-Webster sound file for "reverse"?  It's certainly not a schwa or a short "e" to my ears.  It's pretty much the way I would say it.


----------



## JamesM

There are also words that change pronunciation based on their form:

"pree-fer" for prefer but "pref-er-ence" for preference
"ree-fer" (or "rih-fer") for refer but "reh-fer-ence" for reference and "reh-fer-ee" for referee
"ree-late" (or "rih-late") for relate but "rehl-uh-tive" for relative
"reh-bel" for rebel as a noun but "ree-bell" (or "rih-bell") for rebel as a verb

It's very tricky, tosamja.


----------



## Glenfarclas

JamesM said:


> Do you say "ruh-ten-tion"?  Perhaps it's regional.  I wouldn't,  I would say something between a long "e" and and a short "i".
> 
> Have you listened to the Merriam-Webster sound file for "reverse"?  It's certainly not a schwa or a short "e" to my ears.  It's pretty much the way I would say it.



I am talking about something like the second vowel in "roses."  I did listen to the audio file, and he does not say anything remotely like "ree-".



JamesM said:


> "pree-fer" but "pref-er-ence"
> "ree-fer" but "reh-fer-ence" and "reh-fer-ee"
> "ree-late" but "rehl-uh-tive'.



Right, I don't pronounce any of those words that way either.


----------



## JamesM

It could be that since neither one of us is using IPA we're miscommunicating.  "ee" is the only way I know to represent long "e".   The sound I use is somewhere between long "e" and short "i".  It's not as short as the I in "hit" but not as broad as the "e" sound in "green".

What does it sound like to you?  What vowel sound do you hear in the audio file?  I don't hear the same sound as the second vowel in roses.  Do you?



> Right, I don't pronounce any of those words that way either.



How do you pronounce them, then?  Is there not a difference for you between the initial vowel in these pairs: "prefer/preference", "refer/reference", "relate/relative"?

You seem to have gotten quite adamant about "not ee", but I'd like to know what sound you _do _use.


----------



## Glenfarclas

It's somewhere between the vowels in "pit" and "pet," I would say, sometimes shading off in the direction of a schwa.  In any event, I pronounce the first syllable of "reverse" or "retain" very differently from the first syllable of "rehabilitate" or "reappoint".


----------



## JamesM

And what about the word pairs above?  Are they pronounced differently for you?


----------



## Glenfarclas

JamesM said:


> And what about the word pairs above?  Are they pronounced differently for you?



Yes, they are.  I think we've probably exhausted what we have to say about this issue; it would be useful if other people chimed in.


----------



## JamesM

I'll ask a moderator to do some trimming. I  think we got off-track.


----------



## Glenfarclas

Oh, I think we're on-track -- we're talking about the pronunciation of the prefix _re-_, after all -- just that we're rather stalled unless and until someone else comes along to comment.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Glenfarclas said:


> It's somewhere between the vowels in "pit" and "pet," I would say, sometimes shading off in the direction of a schwa.  In any event, I pronounce the first syllable of "reverse" or "retain" very differently from the first syllable of "rehabilitate" or "reappoint".


That sounds right to me.

Note that Glenfarclas and I are both from the Midwest.


----------



## stephenlearner

Added to previous discussion. Please scroll up and read from the top.
Cagey, moderator 

Hi,

The RE part in words like these (retell, react, and reuse) is [ri].

However, the RE part in words like these (recite, recover, refresh, and remove) is [rɪ].


Why do the words, which appear to have the same structure, have the different vowels for the RE part?

Thank you very much.


----------



## entangledbank

Two different reasons. In 'react' the prefix is before a vowel, so the short form has a short [ i]. However, in 'retell' and 'reuse' the prefix has the full meaning "again", and that is longer than the almost meaningless prefix of 'recite' and the rest.

The spelling 'recover' hides two different meanings and pronunciations: with a short vowel (almost meaningless prefix) it means "get better", but with a full [ i] vowel it means "cover again (e.g. a chair with new fabric)".

The prefix meaning "again" is often written with a hyphen, especially when it distinguishes two different words, as in re-cover, re-sign, and re-create.


----------



## Xyz123456

stephenlearner said:


> Hi,
> 
> The RE part in words like these (retell, react, and reuse) is [ri].
> 
> However, the RE part in words like these (recite, recover, refresh, and remove) is [rɪ].
> 
> 
> Why do the words, which appear to have the same structure, have the different vowels for the RE part?
> 
> Thank you very much.


The difference is so small that it's hardly noticeable, so don't worry about it. Yes recite and reuse have a slight difference in the "re" part but it's so small that no native Speaker would be bothered if you pronounced it either way. Just put the emphasis on the last part and not the "re".  People are FAR more concerned about crazy pronounciations of words like "research", where Americans say REsearch and Brits say reSEARCH.


----------



## e2efour

I wonder why you use the word "crazy" to refer to _research_ with the stress on the first syllable.
The general rule in English for words of two syllables that can be used as nouns or verbs is that the noun has initial stress and the verb final stress (as in _finance_, _record, increase_ etc.).

So the fact that some/most Americans use initial stress for the noun _research_ is not a surprising development.


----------



## dojibear

stephenlearner said:


> The RE part in words like these (retell, react, and reuse) is [ri].
> However, the RE part in words like these (recite, recover, refresh, and remove) is [rɪ].
> Why do the words, which appear to have the same structure, have the different vowels for the RE part?



Are you asking about BE or AE? Most words are pronounced differently in AE and BE.

I speak AE. I use [ri] ("ee") in the "re-" part of all these words. I do not use [rɪ] ("ih", short I) in any of them. I haven't heard any other AE speaker use [rɪ] either. I disagree with any dictionary that says AE speakers use [rɪ] for these words. 



Xyz123456 said:


> words like "research", where Americans say REsearch and Brits say reSEARCH.



In American, "REsearch" is a noun and "reSEARCH" is a verb. There are other words like that (noun and verb are spelled the same, but have different syllables accented).


----------



## kentix

dojibear said:


> In American, "REsearch" is a noun and "reSEARCH" is a verb. There are other words like that (noun and verb are spelled the same, but have different syllables accented).


I would say it's more complicated than that for research. Either could be used in either role by various people or at various times. That's different from the word "record". In that case I don't know anyone who would say "I have a box of old Beatles re-CORDS. But I hear people who tell you what the re-SEARCH proves and people who like to REE-search their family genealogy.

As to the pronunciation of re, I generally hear  [ri], [rə] and sometimes [rɪ].


----------



## natkretep

dojibear said:


> I speak AE. I use [ri] ("ee") in the "re-" part of all these words. I do not use [rɪ] ("ih", short I) in any of them. I haven't heard any other AE speaker use [rɪ] either. I disagree with any dictionary that says AE speakers use [rɪ] for these words.


Doji, are you saying AmE speakers use [riː]? I listened to _relief_ in the WR Dictionary: relief - WordReference.com Dictionary of English, and for the US pronunciation, I hear something between [rɪ] and [rə]. (I have [rɪ], but then I don't speak AmE.)


----------



## Xyz123456

e2efour said:


> I wonder why you use the word "crazy" to refer to _research_ with the stress on the first syllable.
> The general rule in English for words of two syllables that can be used as nouns or verbs is that the noun has initial stress and the verb final stress (as in _finance_, _record, increase_ etc.).
> 
> So the fact that some/most Americans use initial stress for the noun _research_ is not a surprising development.



Given that re- verb forms in English were give to us by the Norman Invasion it makes far more sense that we still pronounce most of them as the French do. Return, recount, reform, research, retell, resume, etc etc. You can write a list of those where we sometimes emphasise the first syllable in the UK but the American habit of pronouncing research as REsearch is a very new element in BE as far as I can remember hearing the word, and it absolutely wasn't how I ever heard it pronounced while growing up. It's only really appeared here in the last 20 years and I'm afraid I always view it as a sign of a bad education. 

When I hear a BBC presenter say "CONtroversy" it sounds ridiculous because the obvious question is "are you trying to make it clear it's a 'con-' type of -troversy instead of a normal 'troversy' ?" You might argue that we say CONflict as a noun but conFLICT as a verb but I've heard an awful lot of Americans completely ignore the second form and just pronounce both as CONflict, etc. 

And if I had to say why it generally sounds silly I'd have to point out that the con- or re- part of the word obviously isn't the key element; it's the second element that gives the word it's identity. 

Like a billion other things Americans emphasise: CREAM cakes is the one that makes me smile; as though cream here has some mystical quality that isn't normally found in a cake. 

My guess is the American habit of emphasising the first syllable in these words has more to do with the mass influx of German farmers in the early 19th century than anything to do with rules of English. 

Do I lose sleep over it? Nope. Does it irritate me to hear BBC presenters using American pronunciations? Yes, I'm afraid it does. And I'm sure Americans get annoyed when they hear a CNN presenter use the word fortnight etc- it probably sounds as silly to them as REsearch sounds to me.


----------



## e2efour

A previous thread about the pronunciation of _research_: Pronunciation: research.

(Note that the comments do not include words like _crazy_, _silly_, _ridiculous_, _bad education_, as far as I can see.)


----------



## Xyz123456

e2efour said:


> A previous thread about the pronunciation of _research_: Pronunciation: research.
> 
> (Note that the comments do not include words like _crazy_, _silly_, _ridiculous_, _bad education_, as far as I can see.)



Thanks. "Note" that there's a possibility you're taking light-hearted comment too seriously. There's no Academie Francaise for the English language.


----------



## stephenlearner

dojibear said:


> Are you asking about BE or AE? Most words are pronounced differently in AE and BE.
> 
> I speak AE. I use [ri] ("ee") in the "re-" part of all these words. I do not use [rɪ] ("ih", short I) in any of them. I haven't heard any other AE speaker use [rɪ] either. I disagree with any dictionary that says AE speakers use [rɪ] for these words.



Thank you, dojibear, for you answer.  But in these words below, do you and your American friends use [ri] or [rɪ]?

p*re*tty
encou*ra*ge
por*ri*dge
pres*cri*ption
*cri*minal
dis*cri*mination
tempe*ra*ture
sa*cri*fice
sa*cre*d
*Chri*stian
sec*re*t


----------



## ewie

A minor point:


Glenfarclas said:


> As to "recreation," it means "create anew" etymologically, but not in reality.


_The film gives a faithful recreation of the court of King George III.
Thanks to the usual input from the Health and Safety mob, their recreation of the Battle of Naseby was sadly lacking._

(I'm sure you didn't really mean to imply that _recreation _in its literal sense didn't exist, Glen)


----------



## natkretep

Yes, absolutely. More literally, we have Cat Stevens's 'Morning has broken':

Praise with elation, praise ev'ry morning,
God's recreation of the new day.

Pronounced [riː]  of course.


----------



## PaulQ

stephenlearner said:


> The RE part in words like these (retell, react, and reuse) is [ri].
> 
> However, the RE part in words like these (recite, recover, refresh, and remove) is [rɪ].
> 
> 
> Why do the words, which appear to have the same structure, have the different vowels for the RE part?
> 
> Thank you very much.


Broadly, there are two uses of "re"
1. "He researched his pockets for the keys." Here, the prefix "re-" is mainly adverbial = [searched] again - the repetition of the action of root verb. This has the emphatic pronunciation  /ri:/. It would be common to hyphenate the verb "He re-searched hs pockets for the keys."
2. "He researched the origins of the word." this is effectively a phrasal verb - the combination of a verb and adverb - with a novel meaning. /ri/ (tending to a schwa)

He *re*-commended the wine - He praised the wine again.
He recommended the wine - He told me that I should try the wine.


----------



## kentix

stephenlearner said:


> Thank you, dojibear, for you answer.  But in these words below, do you and your American friends use [ri] or [rɪ]?
> 
> p*re*tty
> encou*ra*ge
> por*ri*dge
> pres*cri*ption
> *cri*minal
> dis*cri*mination
> tempe*ra*ture
> sa*cri*fice
> sa*cre*d
> *Chri*stian
> sec*re*t


None of those words have an re- prefix.

Although I disagree with him, I don't think Dojibear's comment was about the general pronunciation of the letters r and e together, it was simply about re- as a prefix, which is the topic of discussion. The pronunciation context of that letter combination in those other words is completely different.


----------



## stephenlearner

kentix said:


> None of those words have an re- prefix.
> 
> Although I disagree with him, I don't think Dojibear's comment was about the general pronunciation of the letters r and e together, it was simply about re- as a prefix, which is the topic of discussion. The pronunciation context of that letter combination in those other words is completely different.



Thanks a lot. 

Here in these words, pre is a prefix, I think. So I assume that in America English, pre is generally pronounced as [pri], not [prɪ]. Is that right? 
re*pre*sent
com*pre*hend
*pre*cise
*pre*dict
*pre*scription
*pre*fer 
*pre*pare 
*pre*vent


----------



## kentix

No, that's not right. It depends on the word and the person. The only one I might say with that sound semi-regularly would be comprehend. And it would depend on the sentence.


----------



## natkretep

Stephen, why do you assume that AmE speakers say [priː] generally when American dictionaries indicate [prɪ]? I tend to hear [prɪ] or [prə] from AmE speakers. This seems to be taking the discussion away from the initial question about _re-._


----------



## kentix

natkretep said:


> Stephen, why do you assume that AmE speakers say [priː] generally when American dictionaries indicate [prɪ]? I tend to hear [prɪ] or [prə] from AmE speakers. This seems to be taking the discussion away from the initial question about _re-._


That's a good point. I don't think the same usage patterns apply to re- and pre-.


----------



## AnythingGoes

stephenlearner said:


> Thanks a lot.
> 
> Here in these words, pre is a prefix, I think. So I assume that in America English, pre is generally pronounced as [pri], not [prɪ]. Is that right?
> re*pre*sent
> com*pre*hend
> *pre*cise
> *pre*dict
> *pre*scription
> *pre*fer
> *pre*pare
> *pre*vent


None of those words have /pri/ in normal American pronunciation. They all normally take /prƏ/.


----------



## stephenlearner

_pre-_ and _re-_ work as prefix. Since_ re-_ in American English sounds like [ri] instead of [rɪ], I would quite naturally assume that _pre-_ sound like [pri] instead of [prɪ]. 

But all of you deny it. I am a little surprised.


----------



## kentix

I don't think we really see it as a prefix in most of those words, which affects pronunciation.

Precise - before cise? Post-cise?

No, precise is just a word with a meaning.


----------



## PaulQ

Let me try this theory of mine on you:
precise < classical Latin _praecīsē_ in an abbreviated manner, elliptically, without qualification, categorically, in post-classical Latin also exactly, precise

prae (before) + cise (to regulate or assess) measured beforehand (so as to be precise.)


----------



## JulianStuart

stephenlearner said:


> _pre-_ and _re-_ work as prefix. Since_ re-_ in American English sounds like [ri] instead of [rɪ], I would quite naturally assume that _pre-_ sound like [pri] instead of [prɪ].
> 
> But all of you deny it. I am a little surprised.


Assume?  In English?   Re- in AE is often rə- even for words where some AE and many BE speakers would use ree (such as rebuild and recycle).


----------



## RM1(SS)

Xyz123456 said:


> Like a billion other things Americans emphasise: CREAM cakes is the one that makes me smile; as though cream here has some mystical quality that isn't normally found in a cake.


CREAM cake
CHOColate cake
red VELvet cake
LEMon cake
SPONGE cake

Would you emphasise "cake"?


----------



## JulianStuart

Xyz123456 said:


> Given that re- verb forms in English were give to us by the Norman Invasion it makes far more sense that we still pronounce most of them as the French do. Return, recount, reform, research, retell, resume, etc etc. You can write a list of those where we sometimes emphasise the first syllable in the UK but the American habit of pronouncing research as REsearch is a very new element in BE as far as I can remember hearing the word, and it absolutely wasn't how I ever heard it pronounced while growing up. It's only really appeared here in the last 20 years and I'm afraid I always view it as a sign of a bad education.
> 
> When I hear a BBC presenter say "CONtroversy" it sounds ridiculous because the obvious question is "are you trying to make it clear it's a 'con-' type of -troversy instead of a normal 'troversy' ?" You might argue that we say CONflict as a noun but conFLICT as a verb but I've heard an awful lot of Americans completely ignore the second form and just pronounce both as CONflict, etc.
> 
> And if I had to say why it generally sounds silly I'd have to point out that the con- or re- part of the word obviously isn't the key element; it's the second element that gives the word it's identity.
> 
> Like a billion other things Americans emphasise: CREAM cakes is the one that makes me smile; as though cream here has some mystical quality that isn't normally found in a cake.
> 
> My guess is the American habit of emphasising the first syllable in these words has more to do with the mass influx of German farmers in the early 19th century than anything to do with rules of English.
> 
> Do I lose sleep over it? Nope. Does it irritate me to hear BBC presenters using American pronunciations? Yes, I'm afraid it does. And I'm sure Americans get annoyed when they hear a CNN presenter use the word fortnight etc- it probably sounds as silly to them as REsearch sounds to me.


I initially skipped over this post after seeing some (what looked like) dogmatic comments on what "sounds" silly or funny or irritating or annoying.  I see xyz is relatively new to the forum and has not had much time to get used to the existence of two perfectly normal versions of English - it took me a few years to settle down in N. America too, and I enjoyed one of a series of articles on quite a few what the Brits call "Americanisms" were actually originally Britishisms (I hope to add the link when I find it! Here's one from the Independent and one from the Grauniad Guardian) Created in response to an earlier series on Americanisms that the Brits hate.  I am a dual citizen, just in case anyone thinks I might not be impartial) There are many differences between AE and BE. Period. er, I mean full stop  (I've also always used -ize, as an Oxford Graduate and reader of the OED which questioned the need to use the French spelling when a perfectly good earlier Greek one was available).

/anecdote alert/
In my teens in the UK there were two Sunday evening programs with "religious" content (one on BBC and the other on ITV - the only commercial station at the time and both were required to provide a certain minimum number of minutes of such progamming per week).  One was called "Sunday Break" and the other was "Meeting Point".  So the satirical created a sketch about "Breaking Point".  There was a (stereotypically) serious moderator and the panel consisted of a Catholic, an Anglican, a Buddhist, a Muslim and an Atheist.  The moderator raised all sorts of topics that should have generated heated discussion, yet all the panel seemed to agree.  Finally, the moderator saw the time was running out and tried to close with something like "I am really suprised we did not have some more controversy in tonight's discussion but we must close the show"  Whereupon each panel member jumped up and started shouting their own pronunciation of the word and as the studio lights dimmed to provide the silhouettes for the credits to roll, one could see the panel members coming to blows before the screen finally faded to black. (I recall this vividly , but do not remember if it was Monty Python or an earlier satire show - if anyone re-members, I would be grateful fo the information).
/end anecdote/


----------

