I live without a day's drive from places where Gullah is spoken.
What does English sound like?
>That's true, that. I've noticed it myself, although I thought it was just me who noticed it and no-one else. [Adam]
>No it's not true. [Sander]
I made the original observation based on comments that I'd read. I myself don't know for sure that it's true, but after a couple of persons disagreed, I gave a detailed account of some sibilants in common English words and endings, and compared them with those that are common in Romance languages and German. Some other persons added further evidence. So far I haven't seen much evidence to support the other view. To refresh your memory, here's what I cited previously:
---
>Are you really, really sure that English has more Z sounds than some Continental Languages? [Damian in Zcotland]
No, not at all. If you look at my post, you'll see that I said "I believe I read somewhere" that it had more s and z sounds. I've never tried to analyze them myself.
My first impression, though, is that English does seem to have more sibilants than French. The plural of English nouns would usually have an s or z sound, and the present 3rd person singular of verbs. That's a commonly used person. Taking another Romance language, Spanish would have 's' for noun plurals, but have a 3rd person singular verb without an s or z ending (the 2nd person singular [familiar] and 1st person plural – that do have s -- wouldn't be as common). English possessive with nouns uses apostrophe 's'. Spanish would use 'de'. Maybe that claim holds for most Romance languages.
German would seem to have a good many sibilants, whether more than English I don't know. Noun plurals -- I'd estimate that English has many more with s. Verbs -- once again, English s for 3rd person singular, German t. Maybe German makes up for that with the subject pronouns, though -- English just she, but German sie, Sie, and es (also the -st in the 2nd pers. fam. sing. verb ending). Possessive -- English 's, German 'des' but also 'der' and other non-sibilant forms. 'The' -- English no sibilant, German sometimes has one (e.g., das).
It would take a lot of time to do a really accurate comparison. My first impression is that English is probably more sibilant than the Romance languages. As for German and the other Germanic languages, I won't venture a guess. Also that goes for the Slavic languages.
---
>No it's not true. [Sander]
I made the original observation based on comments that I'd read. I myself don't know for sure that it's true, but after a couple of persons disagreed, I gave a detailed account of some sibilants in common English words and endings, and compared them with those that are common in Romance languages and German. Some other persons added further evidence. So far I haven't seen much evidence to support the other view. To refresh your memory, here's what I cited previously:
---
>Are you really, really sure that English has more Z sounds than some Continental Languages? [Damian in Zcotland]
No, not at all. If you look at my post, you'll see that I said "I believe I read somewhere" that it had more s and z sounds. I've never tried to analyze them myself.
My first impression, though, is that English does seem to have more sibilants than French. The plural of English nouns would usually have an s or z sound, and the present 3rd person singular of verbs. That's a commonly used person. Taking another Romance language, Spanish would have 's' for noun plurals, but have a 3rd person singular verb without an s or z ending (the 2nd person singular [familiar] and 1st person plural – that do have s -- wouldn't be as common). English possessive with nouns uses apostrophe 's'. Spanish would use 'de'. Maybe that claim holds for most Romance languages.
German would seem to have a good many sibilants, whether more than English I don't know. Noun plurals -- I'd estimate that English has many more with s. Verbs -- once again, English s for 3rd person singular, German t. Maybe German makes up for that with the subject pronouns, though -- English just she, but German sie, Sie, and es (also the -st in the 2nd pers. fam. sing. verb ending). Possessive -- English 's, German 'des' but also 'der' and other non-sibilant forms. 'The' -- English no sibilant, German sometimes has one (e.g., das).
It would take a lot of time to do a really accurate comparison. My first impression is that English is probably more sibilant than the Romance languages. As for German and the other Germanic languages, I won't venture a guess. Also that goes for the Slavic languages.
---
"I live without a day's drive from places where Gullah is spoken." -- that should be 'within'.
I myself would have to say that, subjectively, English and German seem to be about equal with respect to overall sibilantness, in practice, even though German is more silibantish than English on one hand due to having had the Second Germanic Sound Shift while English has more sibilant-heavy noun and verb conjugation than German in practice on the other hand. Besides those two things, there seems to be no noticable differences between the two with respect to sibilantness to me at least.
Wow, I didn't know anybody still spoke Gullah. They'd be off the coast of South Carolina, right?
<<It was an upper BC accent that sounded like American crossed with Irish, and it was two days north of NoCal, where i lived at the time.>>
Oh ok cool. Oh, did you call it "NoCal" while you were living there? We say "NorCal."
Oh ok cool. Oh, did you call it "NoCal" while you were living there? We say "NorCal."
No, I called it "Chico", and there was talk of splitting the state back then -- they still proposing that these days?
"And you compared this to all languages of the world? Fuck off. "
Yep.
There are one or two African languages that have no S or Z sound.
Yep.
There are one or two African languages that have no S or Z sound.
LOL, wauw so what you're saying is that there are 3 languages in this world namely, English and 2 african languages?! LOL
Finnish speakers have difficulty learning English sibilants because there is only one sibilant in Finnish, whereas in English there are four.
The learning problem
In the native Finnish system there is only one sibilant, Finnish /s/, to correspond to the English /s/, /z/, /ʃ/, and /ʒ/. This means that the Finnish learner of English has to go from his/her own less- differentiated native system to a more highly-differentiated one, and is faced with problems of perception and production.
Since there is only one sibilant in Finnish, speakers have certain amount of freedom in the precise quality they give it; and so Finnish /s/ may sometimes have a more palato-alveolar quality than English /s/ does. Nonetheless, the Finnish sound is broadly acceptable as a token for English /s/; because the empirical fact are that except in rare individual cases, Finns have very little trouble with the English alveolar sound. Finnish learners’ problems begin when they try to produce the English palato-alveolars [ ʃ ] and [ ʒ ].
http://kielikompassi.ulc.jyu.fi/kookit0405/seashore/solidknowledge.htm
The learning problem
In the native Finnish system there is only one sibilant, Finnish /s/, to correspond to the English /s/, /z/, /ʃ/, and /ʒ/. This means that the Finnish learner of English has to go from his/her own less- differentiated native system to a more highly-differentiated one, and is faced with problems of perception and production.
Since there is only one sibilant in Finnish, speakers have certain amount of freedom in the precise quality they give it; and so Finnish /s/ may sometimes have a more palato-alveolar quality than English /s/ does. Nonetheless, the Finnish sound is broadly acceptable as a token for English /s/; because the empirical fact are that except in rare individual cases, Finns have very little trouble with the English alveolar sound. Finnish learners’ problems begin when they try to produce the English palato-alveolars [ ʃ ] and [ ʒ ].
http://kielikompassi.ulc.jyu.fi/kookit0405/seashore/solidknowledge.htm
I haven't absorbed all the discussion here, but I will throw in my
two cents anyway.
The z used in Australia and the UK is different to that used in the USA.
UK & Australia - zed
USA - zee
two cents anyway.
The z used in Australia and the UK is different to that used in the USA.
UK & Australia - zed
USA - zee
>Wow, I didn't know anybody still spoke Gullah. They'd be off the coast of South Carolina, right? [Uriel]
Yes. Many of the young people have left the islands and lost most of their accent (though the ordinary low-country accents can sound rather odd too).
Yes. Many of the young people have left the islands and lost most of their accent (though the ordinary low-country accents can sound rather odd too).
I think its true English can sound like singing. I noticed that German and to small extent Italian have a flat sond to them. In English you can tell alot of things by the tone and way English is said.
It's interesting that one thing native speakers of a language cannot do is objectively evaluate the aesthetics of their language. As a native speaker of English, English simply sounds "normal" to me, neither pretty nor ugly. It is what it is. But it most definitely has a sound to non-native speakers.
This may be something that comes with any high level of fluency. For example, today, after speaking French for many years, French no longer makes much of an aesthetic impression upon me (neither positive nor negative). It's just what it is—rather like English. But other languages that I still do not speak definitely create positive and negative impressions. I hate the sound of Dutch and Semitic languages, for example, but Italian sounds very pleasant, and clean dialects of Spanish are okay (substandard dialects have unpleasant connotations for me). German sounds aggressive and unpleasant, Swedish and Chinese just sound weird.
It's hard to imagine English sounding like singing to anyone, but as I've said, I can't tell. Perhaps this would apply more to British pronunciations of English, which have much more of a roller-coaster intonation (sometimes irritatingly so) compared to American English. I'm continually amazed by the British-made English courses that place a huge emphasis on British-style intonation, apparently oblivious to its total irrelevance for anyone living outside the isles (or even outside the area around London).
This may be something that comes with any high level of fluency. For example, today, after speaking French for many years, French no longer makes much of an aesthetic impression upon me (neither positive nor negative). It's just what it is—rather like English. But other languages that I still do not speak definitely create positive and negative impressions. I hate the sound of Dutch and Semitic languages, for example, but Italian sounds very pleasant, and clean dialects of Spanish are okay (substandard dialects have unpleasant connotations for me). German sounds aggressive and unpleasant, Swedish and Chinese just sound weird.
It's hard to imagine English sounding like singing to anyone, but as I've said, I can't tell. Perhaps this would apply more to British pronunciations of English, which have much more of a roller-coaster intonation (sometimes irritatingly so) compared to American English. I'm continually amazed by the British-made English courses that place a huge emphasis on British-style intonation, apparently oblivious to its total irrelevance for anyone living outside the isles (or even outside the area around London).
<<and clean dialects of Spanish are okay (substandard dialects have unpleasant connotations for me)>>
While I realize this thread is inherently subjective (that's fine), you say "clean" Spanish as if there were some widely acknowledged "clean" and "dirty" Spanish out there, and then of course you go on to use the "s" word again. ***eyes rolling***
While I realize this thread is inherently subjective (that's fine), you say "clean" Spanish as if there were some widely acknowledged "clean" and "dirty" Spanish out there, and then of course you go on to use the "s" word again. ***eyes rolling***