| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » Their/there/they're...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ruud Harmsen... |
 Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<Their> and <there> are clearly homophonous. But is that also the case
with <they're>?
Always or mostly?
In British English?
American English?
All dialects?
--
Ruud Harmsen
http://rudhar.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| bulkington63... |
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 13, 5:18 am, Ruud Harmsen <realemailons... at (no spam) rudhar.com.invalid>
wrote:
Quote: Their> and <there> are clearly homophonous. But is that also the case
with <they're>?
Always or mostly?
In British English?
American English?
All dialects?
--
Ruud Harmsen
http://rudhar.com
I live in the central US and in casual speech they are all homophones
although I can distinguish <they're> by giving the vowel more emphasis
if needed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 19, 8:21 pm, "noesy_parker" <noesy_par... at (no spam) clara.co.uk> wrote:
Quote: Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removet... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote innews:6eetgeF6ndf5U1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net:
I don't think it is the stress or the time it takes to pronounce, all
the words (their, they're and there) are different to me.
I get confused by the symbols, let's try it this way - how would you
pronounce or transcribe the following ?
Thair
Thee-are
I don't know any version of any of them that would have any part
describable as "thee".
Well, if it's "they-are", is it still homophonous with "thair"? Either
I'm missing something or I misunderstood the meaning of homophone (I
can't see how the <their> in the Lennon news clip can be homophonous
with <there>, and most people I know pronounce <their> that way the
newsreader did.).
"Homophone" simply means they're pronounced identically. (In identical
contexts, of course, so you do have to be sure they're getting the
same stress in each example yo compare.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 19, 7:50 pm, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED... at (no spam) t-online.de> wrote:
Quote: Harlan Messinger wrote:
Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
noesy_parker wrote:
Ruud Harmsen <realemailons... at (no spam) rudhar.com.invalid> wrote in
news:2jlj741pu5au98e850vekjkuvhki63n6fp at (no spam) 4ax.com:
Their> and <there> are clearly homophonous.
Huh? They are not in the UK.
The editors of the OED think they are:
A lot depends on which "there" we're talking about. When used as an
adverb (as in "over there"), "there" is usually indistinguishable
from "their" in RP: /DE at (no spam) /. Existential "there" (as in "There was
nothing left"), on the other hand, has an extremely frequent weak
form /D at (no spam) (r)/, which is not a very common pronunciation of "their".
Yes, that was covered by the OED rendering I quoted.
It's not just a matter of stress. "There" is unstressed in "It's a nice
place to visit, but I wouldn't want to *live* there", for instance, but it's
still /DE at (no spam) /.
It's not reduced. Under some analyses, that means it bears 3rd-level
stress. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ekkehard Dengler... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 6:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Quote: Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
noesy_parker wrote:
Ruud Harmsen <realemailonsite at (no spam) rudhar.com.invalid> wrote in
news:2jlj741pu5au98e850vekjkuvhki63n6fp at (no spam) 4ax.com:
Their> and <there> are clearly homophonous.
Huh? They are not in the UK.
The editors of the OED think they are:
A lot depends on which "there" we're talking about. When used as an
adverb (as in "over there"), "there" is usually indistinguishable
from "their" in RP: /DE at (no spam) /. Existential "there" (as in "There was
nothing left"), on the other hand, has an extremely frequent weak
form /D at (no spam) (r)/, which is not a very common pronunciation of "their".
Yes, that was covered by the OED rendering I quoted.
It's not just a matter of stress. "There" is unstressed in "It's a nice
place to visit, but I wouldn't want to *live* there", for instance, but it's
still /DE at (no spam) /.
Regards,
Ekkehard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| noesy_parker... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote in
news:6eetgeF6ndf5U1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net:
Quote:
I don't think it is the stress or the time it takes to pronounce, all
the words (their, they're and there) are different to me.
I get confused by the symbols, let's try it this way - how would you
pronounce or transcribe the following ?
Thair
Thee-are
I don't know any version of any of them that would have any part
describable as "thee".
Well, if it's "they-are", is it still homophonous with "thair"? Either
I'm missing something or I misunderstood the meaning of homophone (I
can't see how the <their> in the Lennon news clip can be homophonous
with <there>, and most people I know pronounce <their> that way the
newsreader did.).
Quote:
They-are
That'll be close to how I would pronounce there, their, and they're
respectively. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Wordingham... |
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"noesy_parker" <noesy_parker at (no spam) clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1216513296.27999.0 at (no spam) proxy01.news.clara.net...
Quote: Thair
Thee-are
Well, if it's "they-are", is it still homophonous with "thair"?
<They're> has two basic pronunciations - in British English disyllabic
/DeI at (no spam) / and monosyllabic /DE at (no spam) /.
Quote: Either
I'm missing something or I misunderstood the meaning of homophone (I
can't see how the <their> in the Lennon news clip can be homophonous
with <there>, and most people I know pronounce <their> that way the
newsreader did.).
The frequency of the spelling confusion should persuade you that they are
hompohones for many.
Richard. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:01 pm
|
|