do they pronounce same?
"e" in "investment" same to "u"
No, they're very distinct. The "e" in "investment" is [E], an open-mid front vowel, whereas the "u" in "shut" is [V], an open-mid back vowel.
Travis Fri Oct 28, 2005 3:14 am GMT
For me, the "a"s in "above", "about", and "facility", as well as the "o" in "love" are all the same, all being /@/ (realized as [@] when unstressed, as [V] when stressed).
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t919.htm
but I check the online dictionary www.webster.com, they are some pronunciation, according to Travis, they are same,but when I listen to them, I know they're different, it so confuse me.
For me, the "a"s in "above", "about", and "facility", as well as the "o" in "love" are all the same, all being /@/ (realized as [@] when unstressed, as [V] when stressed).
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t919.htm
but I check the online dictionary www.webster.com, they are some pronunciation, according to Travis, they are same,but when I listen to them, I know they're different, it so confuse me.
>>but I check the online dictionary www.webster.com, they are some pronunciation, according to Travis, they are same,but when I listen to them, I know they're different, it so confuse me.<<
Such depends on the dialect, as while in *most* dialects of North American English, /@/ and /V/ have become a single phoneme, the realization of which depending on its stress, in various Northern Atlantic American dialects, possibly Maritime Canadian dialects (I really cannot say much about them), and English dialects outside of North America they are distinct. That's why I said "for me" in my post, because I was *not* talking about English as a whole there.
Such depends on the dialect, as while in *most* dialects of North American English, /@/ and /V/ have become a single phoneme, the realization of which depending on its stress, in various Northern Atlantic American dialects, possibly Maritime Canadian dialects (I really cannot say much about them), and English dialects outside of North America they are distinct. That's why I said "for me" in my post, because I was *not* talking about English as a whole there.
He's probably asking about the second 'e' in investm(e)nt which is a /@/ for most.
Guest, at least many North American English dialects, such is not the case. For example, in the dialect here:
"investment" : /In"vEstmInt/ -> [I~n."vEs:.mI~?]
"shut" : /"S@t/ -> ["SV?]
Hence, the vowel in the -"ment" of "investment" at least here is definitely not the same as that in "shut".
"investment" : /In"vEstmInt/ -> [I~n."vEs:.mI~?]
"shut" : /"S@t/ -> ["SV?]
Hence, the vowel in the -"ment" of "investment" at least here is definitely not the same as that in "shut".
Travis,
As nick wrote, according to Webster's, 'shut' and the second 'e' in 'investment' contain /@/, matching my pronunciation. Who then is this generally representative of?
'sh&t
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/shut
in-'ves(t)-m&nt
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/investment
As nick wrote, according to Webster's, 'shut' and the second 'e' in 'investment' contain /@/, matching my pronunciation. Who then is this generally representative of?
'sh&t
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/shut
in-'ves(t)-m&nt
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/investment
>>Travis,
As nick wrote, according to Webster's, 'shut' and the second 'e' in 'investment' contain /@/, matching my pronunciation. Who then is this generally representative of?
'sh&t
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/shut
in-'ves(t)-m&nt
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/investment<<
I wouldn't know, but that definitely rules out a large portion of the NAE dialects, which would have [I~] or [1~] in the third syllable of "investment" and [V] in "shut". However, the problem is that you are using something in a dictionary that is meant for most laypersons, and hence the pronunciations provided should not be trusted as being accurate in even some hypothetical "average" dialect. Furthermore, they are clearly using some (apparently rather crude) transcription scheme of their own, rather than something more precise like IPA, X-SAMPA, or Kirshenbaum, which in and of itself makes me not very trusting of what it says.
As nick wrote, according to Webster's, 'shut' and the second 'e' in 'investment' contain /@/, matching my pronunciation. Who then is this generally representative of?
'sh&t
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/shut
in-'ves(t)-m&nt
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/investment<<
I wouldn't know, but that definitely rules out a large portion of the NAE dialects, which would have [I~] or [1~] in the third syllable of "investment" and [V] in "shut". However, the problem is that you are using something in a dictionary that is meant for most laypersons, and hence the pronunciations provided should not be trusted as being accurate in even some hypothetical "average" dialect. Furthermore, they are clearly using some (apparently rather crude) transcription scheme of their own, rather than something more precise like IPA, X-SAMPA, or Kirshenbaum, which in and of itself makes me not very trusting of what it says.
Dictionaries usually only show vowels at the phonemic (contrastive) level, so if you're looking for actual phonetic detail Webster's is definitely not the way to go.
it's [InvEsmI~?] or [InvEstmI~?] for me. "Shut" is [SVt].
it's [InvEsmI~?] or [InvEstmI~?] for me. "Shut" is [SVt].
I would actually say something closer to "in-VEST-mint", so no, neither E sounds like a U to me, even though technically the second one should be a schwa.
<<I would actually say something closer to "in-VEST-mint", so no, neither E sounds like a U to me, even though technically the second one should be a schwa.>>
Yeah I say "in-VEST-mint" as well, if we're using English pseudo-phonetic spelling. Like you point out, many schwas in North American English are actually realized as [I] instead of [@], and this is a good example of that. I definitely don't say a schwa in "investment"--that final vowel is the same one I have in "mint" or "miss," so, [I].
Yeah I say "in-VEST-mint" as well, if we're using English pseudo-phonetic spelling. Like you point out, many schwas in North American English are actually realized as [I] instead of [@], and this is a good example of that. I definitely don't say a schwa in "investment"--that final vowel is the same one I have in "mint" or "miss," so, [I].
<<No, they're very distinct. The "e" in "investment" is [E], an open-mid front vowel, whereas the "u" in "shut" is [V], an open-mid back vowel.>>
Ooops, it didn't even occur to me that he was talking about the *second* "e"...
Ooops, it didn't even occur to me that he was talking about the *second* "e"...
I mean the second "e" in "investment", is it same to "a" in "about" or "u" in "shut"?
>>Yeah I say "in-VEST-mint" as well, if we're using English pseudo-phonetic spelling. Like you point out, many schwas in North American English are actually realized as [I] instead of [@], and this is a good example of that. I definitely don't say a schwa in "investment"--that final vowel is the same one I have in "mint" or "miss," so, [I]. <<
Yes, this reminds me of something. I have heard someone saying "stummic" for "stomach".
Yes, this reminds me of something. I have heard someone saying "stummic" for "stomach".