# Liaison



## Namjagbarwar

Hey,guys and girls
I have noticed that you native speakers don't speak word by word but connect words to form sound units which makes a sentence flow more smoothly,like a peanut butter-never really ending and never really starting,just flowing along.Can you give some tips? I am really confused by liaison. Thx.


----------



## Embonpoint

Can you give us an example of a specific sentence you would like us to help you with saying?
And also, it would be a good idea to specify if you prefer to learn British English or American English.


----------



## Namjagbarwar

Thank you for your reply, buddy.
I prefer to learn American English.
Like this: Thirty Little Turtles in a Bottle of Bottled Water.


----------



## Embonpoint

Please be careful calling people *buddy.* It's not appropriate here. First, I'm a woman and this is usually used for men. Also, calling someone buddy in AE is not polite unless you are really close. It is also used by only a limited number of people in the U.S.; my friends don't use it, for example.

That said, here's how I say your sentence Thirty Little Turtles in a Bottle of Bottled Water.

Thirdeeliddle Turtles in a boddleof bottled water.


----------



## Namjagbarwar

Sorry,ma'am 
It's pity I cannot type pronunciation symbols.Do I need to omit /v/of the word of? 
Thank you for your reply again.


----------



## Embonpoint

Namjagbarwar said:


> S
> It's pity I cannot type pronunciation symbols.Do I need to omit /v/of the word of?



I don't understand what you mean.


----------



## -mack-

For me, the /v/ in _of_ depends on how fast I'm talking. It's still there if I say it at a normal rate.


----------



## Namjagbarwar

Sorry for my english.
/v/is a pronunciation symbols in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary.
what dictionary do you American use?Merrianm-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary?


----------



## Namjagbarwar

@-mack- Thx, is it still there if this /v/ in of before consonants?


----------



## Embonpoint

I mostly use Merriam Webster's standard version. But I'm sorry I haven't really studied the pronunciation symbols so I don't know what you mean. There are people on this forum who know them well so maybe one of them will post.


----------



## cyberpedant

Namjagbarwar said:


> .Do I need to omit /v/of the word of?



Were I speaking in my original idiolect I would indeed omit the /v/. My pronunciation would differ a bit from Embonpoint's in that _all_ my /t/s would become /d/s and "boddleof" would become "boddl o' ". But my pronunciation habits have change a bit since leaving Brooklyn.


----------



## -mack-

It's very deemphasized, but it's still there when I say it.


----------



## Namjagbarwar

Thanks for all your help


----------



## Embonpoint

Oh I see what you mean. For me as well as Mack the /v/ is deemphasized but still there. I agree it could disappear if speaking very quickly.There are times I would deliberately drop the /v/, mainly when deliberately being folksy.

May I have a bottle of gin please? (Formal. I say the /v/ clearly.)
Hey. Ya got a bottle of gin? (Informal. Folksy. I drop the /v/. Pronounced "Hey yagatta bottleah gin?")


----------



## Chasint

Embonpoint said:


> Please be careful calling people *buddy.* It's not appropriate here. First, I'm a woman and this is usually used for *me*...


I thought I'd point out this typo. It might cause confusion.


----------



## Embonpoint

Biffo said:


> I thought I'd point out this typo. It might cause confusion.



I meant men. I fixed it thank you.


----------



## Namjagbarwar

cyberpedant said:


> Were I speaking in my original idiolect I would indeed omit the /v/. My pronunciation would differ a bit from Embonpoint's in that _all_ my /t/s would become /d/s and "boddleof" would become "boddl o' ". But my pronunciation habits have change a bit since leaving Brooklyn.



Thank you very much, actually I 'm taking American Accent Training.There is a lot to learn.


----------



## cyberpedant

cyberpedant said:


> My pronunciation would differ a bit from Embonpoint's in that _all_ my /t/s would become /d/s and "boddleof" would become "boddl o' ".



All except for the initial /t/ of "turtles."


----------



## Namjagbarwar

Embonpoint said:


> I meant men. I fixed it thank you.



Thank you, another question: how can I call you or a guy I don't know appropriately?


----------



## Embonpoint

cyberpedant said:


> All except for the initial /t/ of "turtles."



And the initial t in thirty, right? I also would say boddled for the second-to-last word though I neglected to note above. I would not say boddle o unless I was deliberately speaking in a folksy manner. I would always at least glancingly pronounce the /v/.


----------



## Namjagbarwar

cyberpedant said:


> All except for the initial /t/ of "turtles."



Thx,the book entitled American Accent Training says always convert the preposition "to" to "/da/" when you're speaking English,no matter what comes before it. Is it right?


----------



## Embonpoint

Namjagbarwar said:


> Thx,the book entitled American Accent Training says always convert the preposition "to" to "/da/" when you're speaking English,no matter what comes before it. Is it right?



Definitely not. Can you give an example? Here's one that pops into my head.

_I'm going to the store.
_
In that sentence *to *is pronounced* too* if I am speaking correctly and* ta* if I am speaking sloppily or casually*.* Never ever would it be *da.*


----------



## cyberpedant

The word "always" is hard to apply to questions of English pronunciation. And I would say that the instruction you've been given here is wrong. Most often it's /tʌ/.
These sites might be of help:
Pronunciation:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/#
For the IPA:
http://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/phonetic.htm


----------



## Namjagbarwar

Embonpoint said:


> Definitely not. Can you give an example? Here's one that pops into my head.
> 
> _I'm going to the store.
> _
> In that sentence *to *is pronounced* too* if I am speaking correctly and* ta* if I am speaking sloppily or casually*.* Never ever would it be *da.*




That book says the prepositions to usually reduces so mucn that it's like dropping the vowel. Use a /t'/ sound to replace to.If that same to follow s a vowel sound, it will become /d'/ of /da/. Like this : We plan to do it . /we plan da do it/.


----------



## Namjagbarwar

cyberpedant said:


> The word "always" is hard to apply to questions of English pronunciation. And I would say that the instruction you've been given here is wrong. Most often it's /tʌ/.
> These sites might be of help:
> Pronunciation:
> http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/#
> For the IPA:
> http://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/phonetic.htm



A big help.


----------



## Embonpoint

Namjagbarwar said:


> Like this : We plan to do it . /we plan da do it/.



Absolutely not! This book may be taking one very small segment of American English (possibly African American?)

In standard AE as I speak it, the *to* in that sentence would be pronounced either the same as* too* (when speaking very clearly) or* ta. 

I plan ta do it *which comes out* I plan tadoo it. * Most often I say something in between *"I plan toodoo it"* and "*I plan tadoo it." *In a formal context or when speaking clearly ie. at a microphone, i would make an effort to say* too *rather than *ta.

*The only time I can think of where to becomes* da* is after a *t *and even then when speaking casually.

If pronouncing *You've got to do it *I would say* you godda do it *informally but* you've gottoo do it *(with the t clearly articulated) when I prefer to speak clearly and less casually. For example, to a friend I might say* you godda.* In a professional situation, ie. giving a talk, I might prefer *you've gottoo.

*


----------



## cyberpedant

Embonpoint said:


> And the initial t in thirty, right?



The initial "t" in thirty is not really a /t/. It is part of a multigraph (I believe that's the term) for /θ/, the "voiceless dental fricative."


----------



## Namjagbarwar

Is the to following a vowl sound become /d'/ or /də/ wrong ?


----------



## Embonpoint

Namjagbarwar said:


> Is the to following a vowl sound become /d'/ or /də/ wrong ?



Can you give an example? I don't know what you mean by following a vowel sound.


----------



## Namjagbarwar

Embonpoint said:


> Can you give an example? I don't know what you mean by following a vowel sound.




Here it is : at a quarter to two    /at a quarter də two /


----------



## Embonpoint

The U.S. is a big place so it's possible someone says it that way. But in standard AE ie. what I would consider correct, that would be wrong. The t is not pronounced as a d in that case. It would be as we said earlier a* quarter ta two *or a* quarter too two* if speaking crisply and clearly.

 It would sound very uneducated to me or like a strong regional or ethnic accent if someone said it as də.


----------



## Namjagbarwar

Embonpoint said:


> The U.S. is a big place so it's possible someone says it that way. But in standard AE ie. what I would consider correct, that would be wrong. The t is not pronounced as a d in that case. It would be as we said earlier a* quarter ta two *or a* quarter too two* if speaking crisply and clearly.
> 
> It would sound very uneducated to me or like a strong regional or ethnic accent if someone said it as də.








That book says it says standard AE, oh, I don't know any American

And how to pronounce these sentences: 
The dogs would've eaten the bones /the dogz veen the bounz/?
The dogs that's ve eaten the bones /the dog zədə veen the bounz/?
The dogs will've eaten the bones /the dogz lə veen the bounz/?
They're eating them /thyɛid'm/?



[/QUOTE]


----------



## Embonpoint

I say:

*The dogs would've eaten the bones  *the dogs woodov eaten the bones.
*The dogs that've eaten the bones...   *the dogs thatov eaten the bones
*The dogs will've eaten the bones*...  the dogs willov eaten the bones
*They're eating them.   *they're eating them  *or possibly, if I wanted to be informal: *they're eattin em

I could possibly use the pronounciation you gave for the last one only if I was DELIBERATELY being folksy, informal etc. This way of speaking is almost a parody of informal country American English. 

Are you sure this book is not giving you a specific dialect, for example southern English or African American English?

Please be very careful of learning an "American" pronunciation which is nonstandard even in the U.S. A Chinese person who has learned standard American pronunciation--the way newscasters and educated Americans speak--would be very impressive. A Chinese person with a southern accent or another regional nonstandard accent would be very strange and likely very difficult to understand. This kind of English would probably be suboptimal for any professional or career ambitions.


----------



## WyomingSue

I think you're going to have to accept the responses of the Americans who have answered you:  we think your book is wrong.  
Based on your post #32, I think the book must have been written by someone who had too many beers while writing.  If possible, throw it away and get a different book.  If you're stuck with it in a class, concentrate on writing clearly, so if you try speaking to an American we can ask you to write down what you're trying to say, so we can understand you.
Best wishes.


----------



## Namjagbarwar

Embonpoint said:


> I say:
> 
> *The dogs would've eaten the bones *the dogs woodov eaten the bones.
> *The dogs that've eaten the bones... *the dogs thatov eaten the bones
> *The dogs will've eaten the bones*... the dogs willov eaten the bones
> *They're eating them. *they're eating them *or possibly, if I wanted to be informal: *they're eattin em
> 
> I could possibly use the pronounciation you gave for the last one only if I was DELIBERATELY being folksy, informal etc. This way of speaking is almost a parody of informal country American English.
> 
> Are you sure this book is not giving you a specific dialect, for example southern English or African American English?
> 
> Please be very careful of learning an "American" pronunciation which is nonstandard even in the U.S. A Chinese person who has learned standard American pronunciation--the way newscasters and educated Americans speak--would be very impressive. A Chinese person with a southern accent or another regional nonstandard accent would be very strange and likely very difficult to understand. This kind of English would probably be suboptimal for any professional or career ambitions.


Thank you for your tips!
In most instructions "HELD T" before N .So eaten needs pronunce /een/?
This is the book I have http://www.amazon.com/American-Acce...0298&sr=8-1&keywords=american+accent+training


----------



## cyberpedant

Hear, hear! WS. 
And Namjagbarwar, yours is not the only text book that is egregiously wrong about some things. If you browse the threads here you'll find multitudinous instances of poorly educated non-native teachers making all sorts of unsupportable statements about English (and probably most other languages). And usually those who are wrong are the most insistent about their correctness. Posting here will usually get you a correct answer or at least a variety of opinions from which you can choose.


----------



## Namjagbarwar

WyomingSue said:


> I think you're going to have to accept the responses of the Americans who have answered you: we think your book is wrong.
> Based on your post #32, I think the book must have been written by someone who had too many beers while writing. If possible, throw it away and get a different book. If you're stuck with it in a class, concentrate on writing clearly, so if you try speaking to an American we can ask you to write down what you're trying to say, so we can understand you.
> Best wishes.



The link of the book :http://www.amazon.com/American-Acce...0298&sr=8-1&keywords=american+accent+training


----------



## Namjagbarwar

cyberpedant said:


> Hear, hear! WS.
> And Namjagbarwar, yours is not the only text book that is egregiously wrong about some things. If you browse the threads here you'll find multitudinous instances of poorly educated non-native teachers making all sorts of unsupportable statements about English (and probably most other languages). And usually those who are wrong are the most insistent about their correctness. Posting here will usually get you a correct answer or at least a variety of opinions from which you can choose.



Thx  God bless America


----------



## WyomingSue

Namjagbarwar, I followed the Amazon link.  I retract my insinuation that the author had too many beers.  She is a dear little lady (who was--for American WR members--the original Gerber baby on baby food jar labels).  However, she has lived all her life in Florida, which is not really the center of standard English, and wrote your book when she was 72, so perhaps her pronunciation is of a different age and place than what we are used to hearing now.


----------



## Embonpoint

I have spent a lot of time in Florida since my parents used to live there. In no way are the above pronunciations standard here. Nor is not pronouncing the "t" in the word eaten, sent to me by PM by the original poster, even vaguely standard English. Not now, and not in 1950. 

There is a CD with this book. I would love to hear this CD.

I would be very very careful!  (And no, not veddy careful!)

Edited to add that I checked out portions of this book with the "Search Inside This Book" function. The parts I was able to see looked really excellent. I'm wondering whether there are errors in a specific chapter which the original poster is (quite rightly) questioning?


----------



## Namjagbarwar

Embonpoint said:


> I have spent a lot of time in Florida since my parents used to live there. In no way are the above pronunciations standard here. Nor is not pronouncing the "t" in the word eaten, sent to me by PM by the original poster, even vaguely standard English. Not now, and not in 1950.
> 
> There is a CD with this book. I would love to hear this CD.
> 
> I would be very very careful! (And no, not veddy careful!)



Sorry, I dont know what you mean. 
eaten is pronounced /i:tn/ not /i:n/? and
what is original poster?


----------



## Embonpoint

Yes. I say the t and I have never heard an American speaking standard English drop the t in that context.

You are the original poster. Original poster means the person to start the thread.


----------



## Namjagbarwar

Embonpoint said:


> Yes. I say the t and I have never heard an American speaking standard English drop the t in that context.
> 
> You are the original poster. Original poster means the person to start the thread.



Further question: what do you mean "not in 1950"?
PS, how do I call a woman or man I don' know if buddy is inappropriate?


----------



## cyberpedant

Namjagbarwar said:


> how do I call a woman or man I don' know if buddy is inappropriate?



Their forum names are always appropriate.


----------



## Embonpoint

Someone posted before me that perhaps language had changed and the writer (who is an elderly woman) was using English pronunciation which was accurate years ago. That's why I said that the pronunciation suggested is not accurate now, and wasn't in 1950 either!

<< --- Response to off-topic question removed. --->>


----------



## Namjagbarwar

Thank you for all your help, Embonpoint,cyberpedant,WyomingSue.


----------

