Re: OT: Phonetics (IPA)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nikhil Sinha" <nsinha_in@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Phonetics (IPA)


> Thanks to all of you who tried to answer my questions. Yes, I beleive I do
> pronounce the 'ch' and 'j' sounds as palatals. I was not aware of that.
It's
> so natural. But, when I try to copy the newsreaders of BBC and CNN, I do
get
> a 'tsh' and 'dzh' sound instead. I will try to correct my pronunciation.
>
> I was analysing the sound differences between English and Hindi. The
> retroflex sounds of Hindi are 'T' and 'D'. They are pretty close to the
> English t and d, which are alveolar. But the Hindi dental t and d are
> different from the English alveoars. The Hindi retroflex and English
> alveolars are so close, that even at the age of 15 I didn't know that they
> are pronounced differently. I only found that out five days ago, when I
was
> analysing my own speech. I then realised that even though I pronounce the
> Hin. retroflex and Eng. alveolars exactly alike, the way to pronounce them
> is completely different.
AFAIK, this is a pretty common confusion in languages with retroflexes.
However, I, as a native English speaker, would place dentals and alveolars
together, and retroflexes seperately, whereas evidently you would place
retroflexes and alveolars together, and dentals seperately.

> So except the 'ch' and 'j' my pronunciation is British. The differences
are:
>
> Firstly, I do not aspirate the t and d when they are at the beginning of
> words. I always pronounce t and d as unaspirate, no matter where it occurs
> in the word.
>
> And secondly, I pronounce vowels differently. My vowels are much more
'pure'
> than the English or American ones.
By which you mean what? Less dipthongs? So instead of [@u], you have [o]?

> Nikhil
>

Replies