Yes, true, the numerous dipthongs in English become purer vowels in Indian
English.
Nikhil
Joe likis:
> ----- 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
> >
>