# pronunciation - también



## Byblos.sull.lago

Hello Phonetics Experts:

Upon listening to a recorded model of LatAm Spanish pronunciation, the modeller consistently pronounced _también _as three syllables, with a clear stress on the " i " [tam BI en].  I am guessing that this is some rather obscure rule of the acute accent making a new syllable ( like _Noël_ in French ), instead of the usual /jɛ/ diphthong.  

What's the official story, or am I just deaf?  ¡Muchas gracias por adelantado!


----------



## Filis Cañí

Fire the modeller!
 I've never heard _también_ pronounced with three syllables. (If the word had three syllables, it would be spelled _tambíen_, accent on the i to break the diphthong.)


----------



## Nicklas01

Hi, I'm not an expert, but I would think, that it consists on 2 syllables (tam-bién), with stress on 'bién' that's how I think it sounds


----------



## Prima Facie

do agree with both.


----------



## duvija

Hello. Many people pronounce diphthongs as hiatus. It all depends on the rate of speech. In careful, slow speech, you'll hear a hiatus more frequently than not. 
I'm sure you probably heard 'tam. bi. én', but likely not with the word accent on the i . More likely, as two syllables - possibly at the same volume, which tends to confuse Eng. native speakers.
If you do a spectrogram (here I go again  ) you'll see it.


----------



## Peterdg

Filis Cañí said:


> Fire the modeller!
> I've never heard _también_ pronounced with three syllables. (If the word had three syllables, it would be spelled _tambíen_, accent on the i to break the diphthong.)


No, no, no!

Accent marks have only been used in Spanish to break diphthongs in words that could be interpreted as one syllable words like in "rió" and "frió". They have never been used to break diphthongs in words that are longer than one syllable by definition. For example, "incluido" is written, and has always been written, without an accent mark and still, the "u/i" combination is a "hiato".

The accent mark only serves to indicate where the stress is located in a word.

Anyway, since the spelling reform of 1999, the accent mark is never used anymore to break diphthongs; "rió" is now written as "rio". (if you don't believe me, look at the verb conjugator of the verb "reír" in the DRAE (www.rae.es/reír)


----------



## grahamcracker

I think it's a problem with diphthongs.


----------



## duvija

grahamcracker said:


> I think it's a problem with diphthongs.



Really?


----------



## grahamcracker

duvija said:


> Really?


Diphthongs have dialectical variations or perhaps people think they should. If the accent on también is intended to break the tendency toward diphthongs and people fail to recognize that, they present variations that defies the spelling. I don't know how it would sound if the accent were removed. I would guess that the "i" would take precedence, maybe breaking "bi" and "en" into separate syllables.

Okay, so maybe it isn't anything to do with diphthongs. You can't blame me for trying.

When I was writing it I was thinking of the English "tire" and "fire" which sound diphthong-ish to me but I cannot find any English dictionary to support me. The *I*-er sound is represented by a vowel and a consonant, not a diphthong. The only mistake the southerners of the US make is treating it as rhyming with the word "are".


----------



## Peterdg

grahamcracker said:


> I don't know how it would sound if the accent were removed. I would guess that the "i" would take precedence, maybe breaking "bi" and "en" into separate syllables.


 Then the stress would fall on the "a": *t*a*mbien. If the word had its stress on the "i", it would have been written as "*tambíen"


----------



## uspantan

Peterdg said:


> Then the stress would fall on the "a": *t*a*mbien. If the word had its stress on the "i", it would have been written as "*tambíen"



Exactly.


----------



## grahamcracker

Peterdg said:


> Then the stress would fall on the "a": *t*a*mbien. If the word had its stress on the "i", it would have been written as "*tambíen"


I guess I am still trying to figure out what to do with diphthongs *if* I find them without previous knowledge. It would seem that the presence of the accent has no effect whether or not the "ie" is a diphthong. It is a diphthong whether or not there is an accent mark. On second thought, having it over the "i" would negate the "y" effect but "bien" would still be the second syllable.


----------



## Agró

grahamcracker said:


> I guess I am still trying to figure out what to do with diphthongs *if* I find them without previous knowledge. It would seem that the presence of the accent has no effect whether or not the "ie" is a diphthong. It is a diphthong whether or not there is an accent mark. On second thought, having it over the "i" would negate the "y" effect but "bien" would still be the second syllable.


Diphthongs exist regardless of their being accented or not.

B*ie*n /bjen/, diphthong, unaccented as this is a monosyllabic word.
Tam-b*ié*n /tam'bjen/, diphthong, accented on last syllable ending in -n.
B*ie-*na-ven-tu-ra-do /bjenabentu'rado/, diphthong, unaccented, accent on '-ra-'.

What's most useful in Spanish is knowing how word are divided in terms of syllables.


----------



## duvija

For Agró: you know I agree with the syllable business, but I have no idea of why YOU would need them.

For grahamcracker: the diphthongs in Spanish are defined differently from the ones in Eng. 
Any combination of i/u+vowel in Eng. is not a diphthong. The glide preceding the full vowel is a consonantal sound, spelled [y/w]. If it follows, it's a vocalic sound, and then it's accepted as a diphthong (but in phonetics, it's still spelled as y/w - which is a real problem, I mean, if you care about diphthongs...)


----------



## Filis Cañí

Peterdg said:


> No, no, no!
> 
> Accent marks have only been used in Spanish to break diphthongs in words that could be interpreted as one syllable words like in "rió" and "frió". They have never been used to break diphthongs in words that are longer than one syllable by definition. For example, "incluido" is written, and has always been written, without an accent mark and still, the "u/i" combination is a "hiato".
> 
> The accent mark only serves to indicate where the stress is located in a word.
> 
> Anyway, since the spelling reform of 1999, the accent mark is never used anymore to break diphthongs; "rió" is now written as "rio". (if you don't believe me, look at the verb conjugator of the verb "reír" in the DRAE (www.rae.es/reír)



Yes, yes, yes! 

[moderator edit] Accent marks serve three purposes: they let you know which syllable is stressed, they break diphthongs, and they differentiate words with the same spelling (_el_ article, _él_ pronoun).

*Rio*, past tense of reír (reír with accent to break the diphthong) is a one-syllable word containing a diphthong, therefore it doesn't need an accent.

_Incluido _has three syllables because _u_ and _i_ always form a diphthong (unless broken with an accent). While nobody says _también_ in three syllables, many say _incluido_ in four syllables; you would write that incluïdo, and it's called a _diéresis_, not a _hiato_.

Examples of words with accents to break diphthongs:
búho (2 syllables), reíamos (four syllables), amoníaco (five syllables, can also be said in four syllables, without the accent).


----------



## Filis Cañí

grahamcracker said:


> Diphthongs have dialectical variations or perhaps people think they should. If the accent on también is intended to break the tendency toward diphthongs and people fail to recognize that, they present variations that defies the spelling. I don't know how it would sound if the accent were removed. I would guess that the "i" would take precedence, maybe breaking "bi" and "en" into separate syllables.
> 
> Okay, so maybe it isn't anything to do with diphthongs. You can't blame me for trying.
> 
> When I was writing it I was thinking of the English "tire" and "fire" which sound diphthong-ish to me but I cannot find any English dictionary to support me. The *I*-er sound is represented by a vowel and a consonant, not a diphthong. The only mistake the southerners of the US make is treating it as rhyming with the word "are".



_También_ has an accent because it is an acute word ending in _n_, not to "break any tendencies".
The English pronounce _fire_ and_ tire _with a triphthong (no r in between), Non-Southerner Americans with a diphthong: "f*ai*-er".



grahamcracker said:


> I guess I am still trying to figure out what to do with diphthongs *if* I find them without previous knowledge. It would seem that the presence of the accent has no effect whether or not the "ie" is a diphthong. It is a diphthong whether or not there is an accent mark. On second thought, having it over the "i" would negate the "y" effect but "bien" would still be the second syllable.



There's two kinds of Spanish vowels: strong vowels and weak vowels. A, E and O are strong vowels (always), and I and U are weak vowels (always).
Two strong vowels next to each other (or separated by an h) never form a diphthong: caer (2 syllables), ahora (3 syllables), reata (3 syllables), boa (2 syllables), soez (2 syllables). 
A strong vowel next to a weak vowel, or two weak vowels next to each other, always form a diphthong unless the diphthong is "broken" with an accent over the weak vowel: caigo (2), reino (2), coito (2), aura (2), Europa (3), Souza (2), Santiago (3), hiena (2), piola(2), guapa (2), buena (2), cuota (2), fui (1), viuda (2);
caída (3), reímos (3), roía (3), tahúr (2, accent to break the diphthong even if there's an h in between), reúno (3), reía (3), río (2), rúa (2), búho (2), huía (2).


----------



## duvija

Filis, do you believe that anything that's spelled like a diphthongs is really a diphth.???


----------



## Filis Cañí

duvija said:


> Filis, do you believe that anything that's spelled like a diphthongs is really a diphth.???



Is that a spectrogrammic trick question?


----------



## grahamcracker

Filis Cañí said:


> _También_ has an accent because it is an acute word ending in _n_, not to "break any tendencies".


I actually had that idea but I was unsure of the rules regarding natural syllable accents as opposed to syllables with accent marks added. For example, I looked up trabajan. I was taught that it is pronounced with the accent on the final syllable and no accent mark is needed because the consonant at the end determines that it gets the accent. But if I am understanding you all properly, también needs the accent mark to break the rule the that would otherwise place on "tam".



> The English pronounce _fire_ and_ tire _with a triphthong (no r in between), Non-Southerner Americans with a diphthong: "f*ai*-er".



Here's the problem, to the ear, the Northern American pronunciation does indeed sound like two syllables. However, if you look it up in the dictionary, *it is given only one syllable.*

But it gets more complicated than that. To be sure, I checked. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/112732.html

The link I provided does indeed reinforce my idea that the the Norther American "tire" and "fire". If the English language genuine consistency, "tire" and "fire" would be acknowledged as two syllables. Spoken in the Northern U.S, tire and fire rhyme with higher (given two syllables according to the dictionary). In the South, they rhyme with car.



Filis Cañí said:


> There's two kinds of Spanish vowels: strong vowels and weak vowels. A, E and O are strong vowels (always), and I and U are weak vowels (always).
> Two strong vowels next to each other (or separated by an h) never form a diphthong: caer (2 syllables), ahora (3 syllables), reata (3 syllables), boa (2 syllables), soez (2 syllables).
> A strong vowel next to a weak vowel, or two weak vowels next to each other, always form a diphthong unless the diphthong is "broken" with an accent over the weak vowel: caigo (2), reino (2), coito (2), aura (2), Europa (3), Souza (2), Santiago (3), hiena (2), piola(2), guapa (2), buena (2), cuota (2), fui (1), viuda (2);
> caída (3), reímos (3), roía (3), tahúr (2, accent to break the diphthong even if there's an h in between), reúno (3), reía (3), río (2), rúa (2), búho (2), huía (2).


Thanks for the information.


----------



## Filis Cañí

grahamcracker said:


> But if I am understanding you all properly, también needs the accent mark to break the rule the that would otherwise place on "tam".



That's right. If that word was stressed on its first syllable, it would be spelled tambien (no accent). The rules for accent marks were designed so that you can know where all words are stressed by looking at their spelling while keeping the actual accent marks to a minimum.


----------



## Peterdg

Filis Cañí said:


> Yes, yes, yes!
> 
> Accent marks serve three purposes: they let you know which syllable is stressed yes, they break diphthongs no, and they differentiate words with the same spelling (_el_ article, _él_ pronoun)yes (known as "tilde diacrítica").
> 
> *Rio*, past tense of reír (reír with accent to break the diphthong) is a one-syllable word containing a diphthong, therefore it doesn't need an accent. 1)
> 
> _Incluido _has three syllables because _u_ and _i_ always form a diphthong (unless broken with an accent). While nobody says _también_ in three syllables, many say _incluido_ in four syllables; you would write that incluïdo, and it's called a _diéresis_, not a _hiato_. 2)
> 
> Examples of words with accents to break diphthongs:
> búho (2 syllables), reíamos (four syllables), amoníaco (five syllables, can also be said in four syllables, without the accent).3)


 [moderator edit]

1) "rio" is not a diphthong, it's a "hiato". That's why before it was written as "rió", as opposed to "vio" and "dio" where the combination "io" *is* a diphthong. The last two words have never been written with an accent mark.

2) The diéresis is not used for this in Spanish (unfortunately). It's only used to separate the "u" from the "g" in combinations "gui" and "gue"; e.g. "vergüenza". Also, it's not true that every combination "ui" is always a diphthong: actually in "incluido", it is NOT; it's a hiato:

Esbozo de una nueva gramática de la lengua española, 1.4.11e


> Es muy frecuente, en cambio, el hiato /u.í/, especialmente en todas formas con /i/ acentuada del paradigma de los verbos terminados en -_uir _y en sus derivados.



3) Once again, in these words, the accent mark is *not* used to break the diphthong into "hiatos". I't merely there to indicate where the stress falls. The consequence is that the diphthong is broken, but that is not the reason why the accent mark is there. If you'd write "*buho", the stress would fall on the "o": "buh*o*"

If you want to read more, this has already been discussed in various threads: this is one of them.


----------



## Peterdg

Graham,

Don't worry too much. Knowing the difference between a "hiato" and a diphthong is completely irrelevant to writing Spanish correctly. There is nothing in the Spanish spelling rules that requires you to know if some combination is a diphthong or a "hiato". The only thing you have to know is where the stress is supposed to be.


----------



## grahamcracker

Peterdg said:


> Graham,
> 
> Don't worry too much. Knowing the difference between a "hiato" and a diphthong is completely irrelevant to writing Spanish correctly. There is nothing in the Spanish spelling rules that requires you to know if some combination is a diphthong or a "hiato". The only thing you have to know is where the stress is supposed to be.



I don't care so much about the hiato as it is the various logical reasons for the accent marks. The thing is that memorizing all of those words with their appropriate spellings is difficult if I don't know the reasons for them. But if I know the patterns and reasons, then I can guess the various spellings.

If the vowel pattern looks like a diphthong but isn't pronounced like a diphthong, then I would expect an accent mark somewhere.


----------



## Istriano

Spanish dyphthongs are complicated.

MUY is supposed to be [mwi] *muí *(look here: http://www.wordreference.com/espt/muy  )                        
but many people pronounce it as [muj] *múi *
Do you rhyme *muy *with *fui*? If you do, why is the spelling different?


----------



## uspantan

Peterdg said:


> [moderator edit]
> 
> 2) The diéresis is not used for this in Spanish (unfortunately). It's only used to separate the "u" from the "g" in combinations "gui" and "gue"; e.g. "vergüenza".



Could you clarify what you mean by 'separate the u from the g' ?


----------



## Peterdg

uspantan said:


> Could you clarify what you mean by 'separate the u from the g' ?


Sure.

In Spanish, the "g" in the combinations "gi" and "ge" is pronounced as a "j". If the "g" in these combinations has to be pronounced the same way as the "g" in the combination "ga", "go" and "gu", a "u" is added to the "g" to influence the pronunciation of the "g". 

For example: in "gélido", the "g" is pronounced as a "j". In "guerra" the "g" is pronounced as a soft "k" (sorry, I don't know the technical term; anyway, it's pronounced the same way as if it were before an "a", "o" or "u").

In a word as "guerra", the "u" is not pronounced. It's merely there to influence the sound of the "g" (i.e. so that it sounds different from a "j").

Now, in a word as "vergüenza", the "u" itself also has to be pronounced. To indicate that, a dieresis is put on the "u"; that's what I meant by _separating the "u" from the "g"._


----------



## grahamcracker

Peterdg said:


> Sure.
> 
> In Spanish, the "g" in the combinations "gi" and "ge" is pronounced as a "j". If the "g" in these combinations has to be pronounced the same way as the "g" in the combination "ga", "go" and "gu", an "u" is added to the "g" to influence the pronunciation of the "g".
> 
> For example: in "gelido", the "g" is pronounced as a "j". In "guerra" the "g" is pronounced as a soft "k" (sorry, I don't know the technical term; anyway, it's pronounced the same way as if it were before an "a", "o" or "u").
> 
> In a word as "guerra", the "u" is not pronounced. It's merely there to influence the sound of the "g" (i.e. so that it sounds different from a "j").
> 
> Now, in a word as "vergüenza", the "u" itself also has to be pronounced. To indicate that, a dieresis is put on the "u"; that's what I meant by _separating the "u" from the "g"._


So. In "vergüenza", g, u, and e are all pronounced so that it sounds like the English _gway_?


----------



## Peterdg

grahamcracker said:


> So. In "vergüenza", g, u, and e are all pronounced so that it sounds like the English _gway_?


Exactly.


----------



## grahamcracker

Peterdg said:


> Exactly.


Peter,
I checked an online dictionary audio pronunciation. I did not hear the "g" at all. It sounded like "ver-wen-sa"
http://spanish.dictionary.com/definition/verg%C3%BCenza


----------



## Peterdg

grahamcracker said:


> Peter,
> I checked an online dictionary audio pronunciation. I did not hear the "g" at all. It sounded like "ver-wen-sa"
> http://spanish.dictionary.com/definition/vergüenza


Jeje. To me the guy sounds like an Italian speaking Spanish. I admit, sometimes it's difficult to hear. Try this site. With some of the speakers it's clearer.

It's also something your ear has to get used to. Compare it with the English glottal stop. If you're not used to it, you don't hear it.


----------



## grahamcracker

Peterdg said:


> Jeje. To me the guy sounds like an Italian speaking Spanish. I admit, sometimes it's difficult to hear. Try this site. With some of the speakers it's clearer.
> 
> It's also something your ear has to get used to. Compare it with the English glottal stop. If you're not used to it, you don't hear it.


A dialect thing possibly? You're right, it is different. Thanks for the site. It is more user friendly than some of the diccionarios.


----------



## Istriano

grahamcracker said:


> Peter,
> I checked an online dictionary audio pronunciation. I did not hear the "g" at all. It sounded like "ver-wen-sa"
> http://spanish.dictionary.com/definition/vergüenza


 It's informal. Many Spanish write _*w*apo _in chats and on Facebook for _*gu*apo _
And *whiskey* [w] was lexicalized as *güiski*. [gw]


----------



## grahamcracker

Istriano said:


> It's informal. Many Spanish write _*w*apo _in chats and on Facebook for _*gu*apo _
> And *whiskey* [w] was lexicalized as *güiski*. [gw]


Is that an actual Spanish word, transliteralized?


----------



## duvija

O, in case of doubt, let me tell you that a diphthong starting in 'u', neutralizes any voiced velar/labial consonant before it. 
g = b = w
That's why you will see spellings like 'buebo/güebo' (huevo), agüelo (abuelo), and even 'abua' (agua). 
Needless to say, you may check the spectrograms. They are really close.


----------



## Dan2

grahamcracker said:


> For example, I looked up trabajan. I was taught  that it is pronounced with the accent on the final syllable


No, the stress is on the next-to-last syllable.


grahamcracker said:


> and no  accent mark is needed because the consonant at the end determines that  it gets the accent.


Final 'n' (and 's') do not draw the stress to the final syllable.


----------



## Filis Cañí

Peterdg said:


> [moderator edit]
> 
> 1) "rio" is not a diphthong, it's a "hiato". That's why before it was written as "rió", as opposed to "vio" and "dio" where the combination "io" *is* a diphthong. The last two words have never been written with an accent mark.
> 
> 2) The diéresis is not used for this in Spanish (unfortunately). It's only used to separate the "u" from the "g" in combinations "gui" and "gue"; e.g. "vergüenza". Also, it's not true that every combination "ui" is always a diphthong: actually in "incluido", it is NOT; it's a hiato:
> 
> Esbozo de una nueva gramática de la lengua española, 1.4.11e
> 
> 
> 3) Once again, in these words, the accent mark is *not* used to break the diphthong into "hiatos". I't merely there to indicate where the stress falls. The consequence is that the diphthong is broken, but that is not the reason why the accent mark is there. If you'd write "*buho", the stress would fall on the "o": "buh*o*"
> 
> If you want to read more, this has already been discussed in various threads: this is one of them.



[moderator edit] Let's take a look at your arguments:

*"1) "rio" is not a diphthong, it's a "hiato". That's why before it was written as "rió", as opposed to "vio" and "dio" where the combination "io" is a diphthong. The last two words have never been written with an accent mark."

*First thing you need to keep in mind is that when you look at a word written in Spanish, you are being provided with all the information you need to pronounce the word properly, including how many syllables the word has and which syllable is stressed. The spelling of *rio* tells you that the word has only one syllable and, thus, its two vowels are  pronounced as a diphthong.
What I believe is confusing you is the two different ways in which two adjacent syllables such as *io *can be pronounced as an *hiato *(split into two different syllables): one is by having the "closed" or "weak" vowel, *i* in this case, take the stress of the word. When this happens, the closed vowel always gets an accent mark: _río, rúa, aúna, bahía._ Note that all these words are _palabras llanas terminadas en vocal, _and only get an accent mark because we are "breaking the diphthong". The other way in which you can "break a diphthong" is by pronouncing with an hiato two adjacent vowels that are either open-closed (what I called earlier strong and weak), namely *ai, au, ei, eu, oi, ou; *closed-open (*ia, ie, io, ua, ue, uo*) or closed-closed (*iu, ui*) *while keeping the closed vowel unstressed.* Some words that *some people *pronounce this way are *rio*, guion, miope, cuota, ruina, and *incluido*. The fact that *some people *say these words with an hiato does not make these words "hiatos".  In short: the spelling of *rio* tells you that this word is monosyllabic and thus is pronounced with a diphthong, which doesn't mean that nobody pronounces it with two syllables.  Many folks also make diphthongs out of two open vowels, and that doesn't make those words *diptongos*. If you feel so inclined, you can always write mïope, rüina and rïo, which brings us to your next point:

*"2) The diéresis is not used for this in Spanish (unfortunately). It's only used to separate the "u" from the "g" in combinations "gui" and "gue"; e.g. "vergüenza". Also, it's not true that every combination "ui" is always a diphthong: actually in "incluido", it is NOT; it's a hiato:"
*
A quick check of *diéresis* in the dictionary will disabuse you of that notion.

*"3) Once again, in these words, the accent mark is not used to break the diphthong into "hiatos". I't merely there to indicate where the stress falls. The consequence is that the diphthong is broken, but that is not the reason why the accent mark is there. If you'd write "buho", the stress would fall on the "o": "buho".

*If you spell búho without an accent mark, you are left with a one-syllable word containing a diphthong.


----------



## inib

Filis Cañí said:


> *"2) The diéresis is not used for this in Spanish (unfortunately). It's only used to separate the "u" from the "g" in combinations "gui" and "gue"; e.g. "vergüenza". Also, it's not true that every combination "ui" is always a diphthong: actually in "incluido", it is NOT; it's a hiato:"
> *
> A quick check of *diéresis* in the dictionary will disabuse you of that notion.


I'm no expert, so may it be clear that I'm asking a question, not giving an opinion. I found the discussion interesting, so I've just looked up "diéresis" in the DRAE. This is what I found:


> *diéresis**.*(Del lat. _diaerĕsis,_ y este del gr. διαίρεσις, división).
> *1. *f._ Gram._ Pronunciación en sílabas distintas de dos vocales que normalmente forman diptongo, como _ru-í-na_ por _rui-na, vi-o-le-ta_ por _vio-le-ta._ En el verso, la *diéresis* es considerada como licencia poética por la preceptiva tradicional.


and


> *3. *f._ Métr._ Signo ortográfico (¨) que se pone sobre la primera vocal del diptongo cuyas vocales han de pronunciarse separadamente, como en _vïuda, rüido._ Se emplea a veces sobre la vocal débil, para deshacer un diptongo en voces de igual estructura y de distinta prosodia, como en _pïe,_ del verbo _piar._


and


> *5. *f._ Ortogr._ Signo ortográfico (¨) que se pone sobre la _u_ de las sílabas _gue, gui,_ para representar que esa letra representa un sonido que debe pronunciarse, como en _vergüenza, argüir._


It's pretty clear to me that point 1 is talking exclusively about pronunciation, and that point 5 is talking about spelling, but is point 3 talking about standard spelling or signs used only in the speciality indicated?


----------



## Filis Cañí

inib said:


> It's pretty clear to me that point 1 is talking exclusively about pronunciation, and that point 5 is talking about spelling, but is point 3 talking about standard spelling or signs used only in the speciality indicated?



You would only use that sign if for some reason you wanted to make clear how a word is to be pronounced. You are only likely to see it in old poetry, put there by the editor, not the poet. If I were writing a novel, or an article, and used the word_ melifluo_, for example, I couldn't care less whether my readers read the word as _melifluo_ or as _melíflüo_.


----------



## duvija

Are you really so attached to the RAE that you believe in everything they say? The 'tilde' is one of the problems in Sp. orthography. Too many jobs for a little mark. (Long discussions, a while ago, in this forum.) 
The 'diéresis' is 'diéresis o crema/trema', and no one seems to agree even on the name...)


----------



## Peterdg

Now to the core of the issue; My assertion that "incluido" is a hiato is not an invention of mine. The RAE says it is (see my quote from the Esbozo in my previous post). The reason I say "rio" is a hiato is because before 1999, it was written "rió" exactly to indicate it was a hiato.
So, according to your theory, "rió" was a hiato before 1999 and now it isn't anymore as now it is written "rio".

You are right when you say some people pronounce diphthongs as hiatos and vice versa. That's exactly one of the reasons why the RAE completely removed the diphthong/hiato opposition from the accentuation rules. 

Now, there is nothing arcane to the rules that I supposedly master and follow. I strictly adhere to the RAE instructions. I'll list them here. I'll restrict myself to the cases where a combination of more than one vowel appears. I'll deliberately not use the terms diphthongs or hiatos just to show it does not matter for the accentuation rules.

1) Vowel combinations that contain at least one weak vowel (i,u), are considered to form one syllable for accentuation purposes. (ai, ia, au, ua, ei, ie, eu, ue, oi, io, ou, uo, iu, ui)
2) Vowel combinations with two strong vowels (a,e,o), are considered to form two syllables for accentuation purposes. (aa, ae, ao, oo, oa, oe, ee, eo, ea)
3) A combination of a strong vowel surrounded by two weak vowels is considered to form one syllable for accentuation purposes.

Now the general accentuation rules apply. (I suppose those to be known: stress falls on the last but one syllable when the word ends in -s, -n, or a vowel; otherwise on the last syllable; if not, you need to use an accent mark; one syllable words do not get an accent mark, except diacritic accent marks)

For 2), there is no problem as each vowel represents a syllable.

A) For 1) and 3): if the stress falls on the syllable that is formed by 1) or 3), then the stress falls on the strong vowel. If not, you need to write an accent mark. 

B) In the combination "iu" or "ui", the stress falls on the last vowel of the combination; if not, you have to write an accent mark.

As you see, there is no mention of diphthongs or hiatos in this ruleset; that's logical as they do not form part anymore of the accentuation rules.

Now some examples:

búho: one syllable word (the "h" does not count). The stress does not fall on the strong vowel, so the "u" needs an accent mark. 

amáis: two syllable word ending in "s". Stress should fall on the first syllable (amáis), but it does not: you need to write an accent mark.

riais: one syllable word with stress on the strong vowel: no accent mark needed.

aéreo: 4 syllable word (for accentuation purposes) "a/e/re/o/" ending in vowel: stress should be on /re/ but it's not: accent mark needed

adiós: two syllable word ending in "s": stress falls on last syllable so you need an accent mark.

incluido: three syllable word ("in/clui/do") ending in vowel: stress falls on the last but one syllable: /clui/ and within that syllable, the stress falls on the last vowel of the combination "ui"; so no accent mark needed. (B))

río: one syllable word: the stress does not fall on the strong vowel, so you need an accent mark (on the weak vowel)

rio: one syllable word: the stress falls on the strong vowel: you don't need an accent mark.

If you want to discuss other cases, you're welcome to post them and I'll be happy to analyze the accentuation of them according to the above rules.


----------



## Filis Cañí

[moderator edit] I'll try again copying your words in bold and commenting on them afterwards:

*Now to the core of the issue; My assertion that "incluido" is a hiato is not an invention of mine. The RAE says it is (see my quote from the Esbozo in my previous post). The reason I say "rio" is a hiato is because before 1999, it was written "rió" exactly to indicate it was a hiato.*
* So, according to your theory, "rió" was a hiato before 1999 and now it isn't anymore as now it is written "rio".

*Many native speakers split those adjacent vowels into two syllables, and many others don't; neither group is right or wrong. The RAE has decided to fix the spelling as a diphthong (my guess) to avoid introducing the diéresis as a mark neccesary to show the split between two weak vowels or a strong and a weak vowel when the weak vowel doesn't get the stress in the process, that is, the need to write *inclüido* and *rïó*.
"Broken Diphthong type A": When a "diphthong is broken", and the weak vowel gets the stress, that weak vowel always gets an accent mark, regardless of its location.
"Broken Diphthong type B": When a "diphthong is broken" and the weak vowel doesn't get the stress, you can either "side with those who don't split the syllable" and leave the word without accent marks, and thus "rule in favor of the diphthong" (as the RAE does now) *OR *"side with those who split the diphthong", which means making the diéresis obligatory, as in rïó (two word syllable: the diéresis tells you that vowels are split, accent mark on the *o* because the word is _aguda acabada en vocal.)_

_*I'll list them here. I'll restrict myself to the cases where a combination of more than one vowel appears. I'll deliberately not use the terms diphthongs or hiatos just to show it does not matter for the accentuation rules.*

* 1) Vowel combinations that contain at least one weak vowel (i,u), are considered to form one syllable for accentuation purposes. (ai, ia, au, ua, ei, ie, eu, ue, oi, io, ou, uo, iu, ui)
2) Vowel combinations with two strong vowels (a,e,o), are considered to form two syllables for accentuation purposes. (aa, ae, ao, oo, oa, oe, ee, eo, ea)
3) A combination of a strong vowel surrounded by two weak vowels is considered to form one syllable for accentuation purposes.

*_I explained those same rules earlier in this thread... [moderator edit]

*Now the general accentuation rules apply. (I suppose those to be known: stress falls on the last but one syllable when the word ends in -s, -n, or a vowel; otherwise on the last syllable; if not, you need to use an accent mark; one syllable words do not get an accent mark, except diacritic accent marks).*

Those are not the accentuation rules!

 These are the rules, designed to always show which syllable is stressed, while keeping accent marks to a minimum:

 1. All _palabras llanas _will be written with an accent mark, except those ending with a vowel or *n* or *s. *
 Another way to express rule one: most _palabras llanas _end with a vowel, *n*, or *s*, so the exceptions will get an accent: lápiz, árbol, tótem.
 2. All_ palabras agudas _ending in a vowel, *n* or *s* get an accent. (Most _palabras agudas _end with a vowel, n or s, and they need the accent to show that they are not _palabras llanas._)
 3. All palabras _esdrújulas_ and _sobreesdrújulas _get an accent.

*A) For 1) and 3): if the stress falls on the syllable that is formed by 1) or 3), then the stress falls on the strong vowel. If not, you need to write an accent mark. *

You are confused. If the stress falls on the syllable with the diphthong, and that syllable needs an accent (because it is _esdrújula_, for example, or the diphthong is in a _palabra aguda acabada en vocal_), then the accent will be put on the strong vowel. Cariátide, resumió. (The whole syllable is stressed, but it is the strong vowel which is written with the accent, if needed.)

*If not, you need to write an accent mark. *

If not (if the stress does not fall on the syllable that is formed by 1) or 3), you never write an accent mark, because that syllable (a diphthong) is not stressed.

*búho: one syllable word (the "h" does not count). The stress does not fall on the strong vowel, so the "u" needs an accent mark. *

Búho is a two-syllable word,_ llana acabada en vocal_. According to the rules, _palabras llanas acabadas en vocal _are not written with an accent mark. This one is because the "diphthong has been broken" and the stress falls on the weak vowel.

*amáis: two syllable word ending in "s". Stress should fall on the first syllable (amáis), but it does not: you need to write an accent mark.*

amáis: palabra aguda acabada en vocal: lleva acento. Como el acento recae en un diptongo, se pone sobre la vocal fuerte.

*riais: one syllable word with stress on the strong vowel: no accent mark needed.*

One syllable word with the stress on the whole syllable. One syllable words never have accents (except _diacríticos_). Many people pronounce it rïáis (triphthong broken, accent not on the weak broken syllable, palabra aguda acabada en *s*, acento sobre la vocal fuerte).

* aéreo: 4 syllable word (for accentuation purposes) "a/e/re/o/" ending in vowel: stress should be on /re/ but it's not: accent mark needed

*aéreo: palabra esdrújula, siempre con acento.

*adiós: two syllable word ending in "s": stress falls on last syllable so you need an accent mark.*

 adiós: palabra aguda acabada en *s*: acento.

*incluido: three syllable word ("in/clui/do") ending in vowel: stress falls on the last but one syllable: /clui/ and within that syllable, the stress falls on the last vowel of the combination "ui"; so no accent mark needed. **(B))*

incluido: palabra llana acabada en vocal: no lleva acento. Again, when a syllable containing a diphthong is stressed, the whole diphyhong is stressed. If you "break the diphthong" and pronounce it in-clu-i-do (not against the law), the only way to show that is by adding the diéresis: inclüido. 

*río: one syllable word: the stress does not fall on the strong vowel, so you need an accent mark (on the weak vowel)*

 río: two syllable word. Palabra llana acabada en vocal que sólo lleva acento porque hemos separado el diptongo.

*rio: one syllable word: the stress falls on the strong vowel: you don't need an accent mark.*

rio: Again, when a diphthong is stressed, the whole diphthong is stressed. Look again at my "broken diphthongs type A and B".


----------



## duvija

I'm really happy to finally find someone even crazier than myself, when it comes to diphthongs. I also believe we have waaaay more hiatus than they acknowledge, but... I made peace with myself by softly patting my head every night and repeat, before I go to sleep, that the RAE had to make a decision between acoustics and spelling. They chose 'spelling'. And it's not the end of the world. 
We don't have to follow every orthography attack that comes our way. The system doesn't put you in jail for not complying. You keep doing your research and publish your conclusions. (I've been discussing 'reuma/reúma/réuma' for a long time, with very little luck).

(I also worked on diphthongs and syllables for a good part of the last 20 years. Isn't it amazing?. There are some nuts in the world. More than just one).


----------



## Adelaida Péndelton

grahamcracker said:


> Is that an actual Spanish word, transliteralized?


No, the real spanish word is with _qu_ instead of _k_: *güisqui*.


----------



## Filis Cañí

Peterdg said:


> (. . .)
> 
> búho: one syllable word (the "h" does not count). The stress does not fall on the strong vowel, so the "u" needs an accent mark.
> 
> (. . . )
> 
> río: one syllable word: the stress does not fall on the strong vowel, so you need an accent mark (on the weak vowel)
> 
> (. . .)



Dear Peter,
I was thinking this morning about your last posting, parts of which I pasted above, and to your credit  , I decided that you cannot really believe that búho and río are one-syllable words. That must be your "starting point" for some strange system you've got going on.  What I haven't been able to figure out yet is whether that system is to be used when you want to know how to spell a word you already know how to pronounce, or when you want to know how to pronounce a word that you see written. These are the reasons for my uncertainty:

1. If you know how to say _búho_ and _río_ and want to know how to spell them, you already know that they are two-syllable words and which syllable is stressed. _Búho_ is tricky because it could be spelled with a _b_ or a _v_, and one cannot guess the existence of the _h_, so let's not use it here. _Río_ we already know that it is a two-syllable word, we also know that _io_ would be a diphthong unless we split it, and we further know that we _are_ splitting it. We also know that if we split a diphthong and the stress falls on the weak vowel, we use an accent mark. So _voilà_: we spell _río_ with an accent mark.

2. If we see the word _río_ in writing but we don't know how to pronounce it, our first clue is that it is a two-syllable word because one-syllable words don't have accent marks (except of the diacritic kind). We see that the _i_ has an accent mark, so we know that _i_ it must be the stressed vowel.


----------



## Filis Cañí

So let's recapitulate, Peter. This thread is about someone who hears a modeler pronounce _también_ splitting the diphthong, finds it weird, and asks about it. Three natives, including myself, answer that the diphthong in _también_ is not a diphthong that anyone splits when talking, just like no one splits the diphthong in_ fui_, either. Your answer to this simple observation is:



Peterdg said:


> No, no, no!
> 
> *A*. Accent marks have only been used in Spanish to break diphthongs in words that could be interpreted as one syllable words like in "rió" and "frió". They have never been used to break diphthongs in words that are longer than one syllable by definition. For example, "incluido" is written, and has always been written, without an accent mark and still, the "u/i" combination is a "hiato".
> 
> *B*. The accent mark only serves to indicate where the stress is located in a word.
> 
> *C*.Anyway, since the spelling reform of 1999, the accent mark is never used anymore to break diphthongs; "rió" is now written as "rio". (if you don't believe me, look at the verb conjugator of the verb "reír" in the DRAE (www.rae.es/reír)



Words like _reíamos_ and _amoníaco_ disproved your points *A* and *C*, and diacritic accent marks disproved your point *B*.
 In points *A* and *B, *though, you introduced a subject somewhat related to the thread's topic: What about diphthongs that many speakers split while not stressing the split weak vowel, words like _rio_? Given the proven falsehood of your statements* A* and *C, *I concluded that something was confusing you. I'll explain the issue again differently, and if someone wants to argue against my points, I propose that a new thread be started (you can still have the last word in this thread if you wish to, Peter).

Our starting point is two rules which are not advisable to change:

*1*. Monosyllabic words don't get accents.
*2*. When a diphthong is split, the weak vowel gets the stress and an accent mark over it is mandatory.

Question: How could we express graphically that a word like r_io _is split into two syllables by many speakers?
Answer: The only way to do that while keeping rules *1* and *2* is to make the use of the _diéresis_ mandatory: rïó.

I believe that the R.A.E. doesn't want to encumber the language with a new mandatory symbol, and that's why they decided that all such diphthongs that folks split without stressing the weak vowel will be considered diphthongs por spelling purposes, while at the same time acknowledging that many other folks never split those diphthongs to begin with, in which case the rule doesn't change anything for them.

That's all I have to say about this matter in this thread!


----------



## Peterdg

Hello,

I'll try to answer all your points but let me first explain what the main principles are:

1) If you know how a word is pronounced, you don't need to know about diphthongs and hiatos to be able to place the accent mark (or not place it) in the correct place.
2) Inversely, if you see a word (correctly) spelled, you can not necessarily decide whether something has to be pronounced as a hiato or a diphthong.

I'm sorry I didn't think of the next example sooner (an example that was shown to me in another thread by another forero).

Take the word _pie_. It can mean "foot", in which case it is pronounced as a diphthong. It can also be the first person singular of the preterito indefinido of the verb "piar", in which case it is pronounced as a hiato. Since the new spelling rules, both are written the same way, without an accent mark. If we do not agree on this part, I think further discussion is senseless.

This shows that the accent mark is not used to distinguish between a diphthong and a hiato.

About _búho_: I know it is a two-syllable word. If you look at the rules that I mentioned, it says that for accentuation purposes, it should be considered as a one syllable word. It does not say anything about the real number of syllables. I'm sorry if that confused you but it is the literal translation of the RAE rules.


> ...algunas palabras que antes de esta fecha se consideraban bisílabas pasan ahora a ser consideradas monosílabas a efectos de acentuación gráfica...



About _reíais_: Combination 3) re/íais ("iai" is a strong vowel surrounded by two weak vowels, so to be considered as one syllable for accentuation purposes). Its a word ending in "s", so if unaccented, the stress would fall on /re/, hence the combination /iai/ needs an accent mark. Where? On the vowel on which the stress falls, in this case /íai/.

It is obvious that your system and mine will give the same results for, let's say, 99% of the words. It's the other one percent where the RAE has decided to change the spelling and follow the new rules consistently. Where until 2010 both the old and the new accentuation were accepted, now only the new accentuation is permitted (nobody will kill you, but if you have to do an exam, it's better to know the official rules)


> Aunque la ortografía de 1999, donde se establecieron las citadas convenciones, prescribía ya la escritura sin tilde de estas palabras, admitía que los hablantes que las pronunciasen como bisílabas pudiesen seguir acentuándolas gráficamente. En cambio, a partir de la edición de 2010 se suprime dicha opción, que quiebra el principio de unidad ortográfica, de modo que las palabras que pasan a considerarse monosílabas por contener este tipo de diptongos o triptongos ortográficos deben escribirse ahora obligatoriamente sin tilde.


The same applies to the other consequences of the rules that I mentioned.

About your remark of one syllable words not receiving an accent mark (except diacritic ones). I admit I was not precise enough in the description of the rule, but I can hardly reproduce the complete spelling guide of the RAE here.

I hope I have now covered the majority of your comments. I know it must seem as the world turned upside down if you were raised with the old system, but that's the way it is now.


----------



## Filis Cañí

[Estimado don Fenixpollo, no me ha llegado ningún mensaje de usted. Me imagino que borró mi mensaje por usar mayúsculas enfáticas. Espero que apruebe usted el uso de colorines con el mismo fin.]


Peterdg said:


> Take the word _pie_. It can mean "foot", in which case it is pronounced as a diphthong. It can also be the first person singular of the preterito indefinido of the verb "piar", in which case it is pronounced as a hiato. Since the new spelling rules, both are written the same way, without an accent mark. If we do not agree on this part, I think further discussion is senseless.
> 
> 1. This shows that the accent mark is not used to distinguish between a diphthong and a hiato.


 
These are the rules you are talking about:


> *1.2.** Monosílabos. *Las palabras de una sola sílaba no se acentúan nunca gráficamente, salvo en los casos de tilde diacrítica (→ 3.1): _mes, bien, fe, fui, pan, vio. _Puesto que, dependiendo de distintos factores, una misma secuencia de vocales puede articularse como diptongo (→ diptongo) o como hiato (→ hiato), para saber si una palabra es o no monosílaba desde el punto de vista ortográfico, hay que tener en cuenta que *algunas* combinaciones vocálicas se consideran siempre diptongos a efectos de acentuación gráfica, sea cual sea su pronunciación. En concreto, toda combinación de vocal abierta (_a, e, o_) + vocal cerrada (_i, u_), o viceversa, *siempre que la cerrada no sea tónica*, así como la combinación de dos vocales cerradas distintas, han de considerarse diptongos desde el punto de vista ortográfico. Esta convención es una de las novedades introducidas en la _Ortografía_ académica de 1999. Por eso, algunas palabras que antes de esta fecha se consideraban bisílabas pasan ahora a ser consideradas monosílabas a efectos de acentuación gráfica, por contener alguna de las secuencias vocálicas antes señaladas, y, como consecuencia de ello, deben escribirse sin tilde.
> http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltConsulta?lema=tilde


Note the red, underlined, italicized and bold words:  *siempre que la cerrada no sea tónica.* That means that the vast majority of two-syllable words with a “split diphthong” are not considered monosyllabic, because the weak vowel _*is*_ stressed. Thus, río, mío, fío, reí, ría, ríe, laúd, raíl are all two-syllable words from every point of view. The words you are referring to are a minority of hiatos, words like rïó, fïó, crïé, etc.  Only for these last group of words is your green statement (1)  valid.



Peterdg said:


> About _búho_: I know it is a two-syllable word. If you look at the rules that I mentioned, it says that for accentuation purposes, it should be considered as a one syllable word. It does not say anything about the real number of syllables. I'm sorry if that confused you but it is the literal translation of the RAE rules.



The rules you mentioned are the same rules I have posted above. Refer again to the underlined passage. The _vocal cerrada_ in _búho_ is _tónica._ Rule 1.2 does not apply to búho. Let’s see what rule 2.2.2. b) says about the word búho:


> *2.2.2.* _Acentuación de las palabras con hiato_
> *b)* Las palabras con hiato formado por una vocal cerrada tónica y una vocal abierta átona, o por una vocal abierta átona y una cerrada tónica, siempre llevan tilde sobre la vocal cerrada, con independencia de que lo exijan o no las reglas generales de acentuación: _armon_ía, _gr_úa, _insin_úe,_ d_úo, _r_ío,_ hemat_íe, _l_aú_d, c_aí_da, r_aí_z, f_eú_cho, caf_eí_na, eg_oí_smo, _oí_r._ La presencia de una hache intercalada no exime de la obligación de tildar la vocal tónica del hiato: _búho, ahíto, prohíbe_.
> http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltConsulta?lema=tilde


That says that the word búho contains an _hiato, _therefore it cannot be considered a monosyllabic word for any purposes.


Peterdg said:


> I know it must seem as the world turned upside down if you were raised with the old system, but that's the way it is now.


*[...]*


----------

