Why can't we get our th sounds right.

pickarooney · 22-10-2012 02:08PM

Your ability/willingness/propensity to pronounce your TH/H/W/dark L sounds is irrelevant. A Cork/Ayrshire accent is not RP (both are rhotic, for starters), nor are any of the thousands of other accents where TH is pronounced as [θ]/[ð]. RP is not something that should necessarily be aspired to, not any other accent something to be ashamed of. Only about a quarter of a percent of native English speakers have that accent; the rest of us get along just fine without it.

Bannasidhe · 22-10-2012 02:40PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Your ability/willingness/propensity to pronounce your TH/H/W/dark L sounds is irrelevant. A Cork/Ayrshire accent is not RP (both are rhotic, for starters), nor are any of the thousands of other accents where TH is pronounced as [θ]/[ð]. RP is not something that should necessarily be aspired to, not any other accent something to be ashamed of. Only about a quarter of a percent of native English speakers have that accent; the rest of us get along just fine without it.

No - it's not irrelevant. You stated that ' Received pronunciation is by definition an English accent' - I do not have an English accent but I do employ 'received' pronunciation.

pickarooney · 22-10-2012 02:44PM

Why the quote marks around received? Do you know what the term actually means?

Bannasidhe · 22-10-2012 02:50PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Why the quote marks around received? Do you know what the term actually means?

Yes.

Do you know it is possible to employ diction while not also having an estuary English accent?

P. Breathnach · 22-10-2012 03:17PM

Seanchai wrote: »

Tut, tut. Amount v. number

It's bad form to pick up on another poster's grammar, spelling, or language usage unless invited to do so by that poster. It's worse when one picks up on a correct usage and suggests that it is wrong.

P. Breathnach · 22-10-2012 03:34PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No - it's not irrelevant. You stated that ' Received pronunciation is by definition an English accent' - I do not have an English accent but I do employ 'received' pronunciation.

I think you misunderstand RP: it is by definition an English accent.

There exists an accent of the Irish educated middle class. Other than having a general "Irish" quality, it does not have easily-detectable regional markers, and speakers tend not to substitute "d" sounds for "th" sounds; neither do they substitute "sh" for "t" (as in saying "thash" for "that"). Some broadcasters use such an accent: Pat Kenny, Philip Bouchier-Hayes, and Terry Wogan come to mind. Perhaps we need to establish a term: Hiberno-English Received Pronunciation (HERP).

[Some of the pronunciations that bother people who are posting here are carried over from Irish.]

Bannasidhe · 22-10-2012 03:48PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think you misunderstand RP: it is by definition an English accent.

There exists an accent of the Irish educated middle class. Other than having a general "Irish" quality, it does not have easily-detectable regional markers, and speakers tend not to substitute "d" sounds for "th" sounds; neither do they substitute "sh" for "t" (as in saying "thash" for "that"). Some broadcasters use such an accent: Pat Kenny, Philip Bouchier-Hayes, and Terry Wogan come to mind. Perhaps we need to establish a term: Hiberno-English Received Pronunciation (HERP).

[Some of the pronunciations that bother people who are posting here are carried over from Irish.]

My objection is to a perceptible undertone that failure to 'dis/dat/doze/dees/and dem' is 'Anglo' and therefore 'not Irish'. It is perfectly possible to speak correctly and have a 'regional' i.e non Estuary English accent.

I am aware of the origins and am guilty myself of the 'inside in' (isteach san) but to be honest I doubt if many people who fail to pronounce 'TH', for example, speak Irish as their first language - or at all - so there is really no reason for the pronunciation of sounds in Irish to impact so much on our ability to correctly pronounce those sounds in English. It cannot be compared, as seems to be happening here, to for example Native Japanese speakers who later learn English having problems with 'R'. The Irish are native English speakers as for the vast majority of us English is not only our first language, it is our only language.

pickarooney · 22-10-2012 04:24PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My objection is to a perceptible undertone that failure to 'dis/dat/doze/dees/and dem' is 'Anglo' and therefore 'not Irish'. It is perfectly possible to speak correctly and have a 'regional' i.e non Estuary English accent.

I am aware of the origins and am guilty myself of the 'inside in' (isteach san) but to be honest I doubt if many people who fail to pronounce 'TH', for example, speak Irish as their first language - or at all - so there is really no reason for the pronunciation of sounds in Irish to impact so much on our ability to correctly pronounce those sounds in English. It cannot be compared, as seems to be happening here, to for example Native Japanese speakers who later learn English having problems with 'R'. The Irish are native English speakers as for the vast majority of us English is not only our first language, it is our only language.

I don't think Estuary English means what you think it means either. What's your criteria for what is the correct pronunciation of sounds? RP English doesn't have R sounds at the ends of words, generally speaking. Is it fair to say that anyone who does is mispronouncing his Rs? Same for your L sounds. Do you accept that using a light L where a British speaker would use a dark one makes you wrong? And your diphthongs, do they all line up with the Queen 's English or do you allow yourself some variance while still maintaining your diction is correct?

P. Breathnach · 22-10-2012 05:47PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

... I doubt if many people who fail to pronounce 'TH', for example, speak Irish as their first language - or at all - so there is really no reason for the pronunciation of sounds in Irish to impact so much on our ability to correctly pronounce those sounds in English. ..

The use of dis, dat, dese, and dose is particularly common in parts of Dublin, so it is hardly associated with people whose first language is Irish - or even whose relatively recent ancestors were Irish speakers. Just as our syntax in English reflects a Gaelic past that might be a few generations distant, so also do our English pronunciations.

I'm also a bit bothered about the idea of "correct" pronunciation. Who is the arbiter of that? I have pronunciation preferences, and if you heard me speak you might guess that I am Irish, middle class, educated, and you might not be sure in what part of Ireland I spent my formative years. But I cavil at the idea that my speech is better or more correct than that of people who speak in ways that differ from mine.

Bannasidhe · 22-10-2012 07:14PM

It's quite simple - in English 'this' is not correctly pronounced 'dis' nor is the Cockney 'fis' correct.
I think that is is not unreasonable to suggest that those who work in broadcasting should make the effort to pronounce words correctly, which is what the OP was talking about.

I too shudder when I hear 'In de midlands dere was tree hundred millimeters of rain.' but not as much as when I hear RTÉ Southern correspondent's nasal tones.

pickarooney · 22-10-2012 08:10PM

It's only simple because you've got a pre-conceived idea of what is acceptable and what isn't. Your preferences don't reflect anything other than your opinion. I've already asked you a couple of times to clarify your position on other vowels and consonants for consistency's sake but no reply so far.

Bannasidhe · 22-10-2012 08:23PM

pickarooney wrote: »

It's only simple because you've got a pre-conceived idea of what is acceptable and what isn't. Your preferences don't reflect anything other than your opinion. I've already asked you a couple of times to clarify your position on other vowels and consonants for consistency's sake but no reply so far.

We all have a pre-conceived idea of how each letter sounds and how combinations of letters sound. It's the whole basis of how a phonetic alphabet works.
The sounds vary according to the language or dialect being spoken - so while in English we all have a pre-conceived idea of how 'V' and 'W' are pronounced which is completely opposite to how a native German speaker would believe they should be pronounced. But were that German to tell is they were 'wisiting their wolks in Wentry willage' we, as English speakers, would consider this wrong.

In the English language there exists a pre-conceived sound that is produced when the letter T is placed before the letter H and that sound is not 'D'.

pickarooney · 22-10-2012 08:35PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We all have a pre-conceived idea of how each letter sounds and how combinations of letters sound. It's the whole basis of how a phonetic alphabet works.
The sounds vary according to the language or dialect being spoken - so while in English we all have a pre-conceived idea of how 'V' and 'W' are pronounced which is completely opposite to how a native German speaker would believe they should be pronounced. But were that German to tell is they were 'wisiting their wolks in Wentry willage' we, as English speakers, would consider this wrong.

In the English language there exists a pre-conceived sound that is produced when the letter T is placed before the letter H and that sound is not 'D'.

Even in RP that combination has three possible pronunciations. Irish speakers of English pick from at least five.

P. Breathnach · 22-10-2012 08:56PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Even in RP that combination has three possible pronunciations. Irish speakers of English pick from at least five.

And then you have the problem of aural discrimination. Some people are genuinely incapable of distinguishing between two sounds that others can easily distinguish. That is (inevitably) closely linked with our capacity to produce sounds.
- "You should pronounce it that."
- "But I do pronounce it dat."

Our capacity for aural discrimination and phoneme production is largely determined in early childhood (before and during the time we learn to speak) and is very much influenced by the speech patterns that we experience at that stage of our lives.

two wheels good · 22-10-2012 09:17PM

This thread seems to have gone off on an esoteric tangent.

I'd like to add a final point in response to the posters who believe there is no "right or wrong approach". Maybe so, but I would say there is a " better or worse approach"

I have a friend, a primary school teacher who makes a concerted effort to correct her pupils pronunciation and grammer - 'three' not 'tree' etc and also 'I seen', I done, 'them books'. (And seems to do it in good humoured manner drawing a tree on the board instead of 3. No teacher! Laughs all round.)

To those who advocate the approach to pronunciation of "no right or wrong way" I ask: Do you think my friend should abandon her efforts? (Should she also allow the bad grammar go unchecked?)
If your child was in her class would you be happy for the child to go uncorrected?

If you agree that this teacher's corrections are appropriate then you are, in effect, admitting there is a 'better' pronunciation.

pickarooney · 22-10-2012 10:29PM

two wheels good wrote: »

This thread seems to have gone off on an esoteric tangent.

I'd like to add a final point in response to the posters who believe there is no "right or wrong approach". Maybe so, but I would say there is a " better or worse approach"

I have a friend, a primary school teacher who makes a concerted effort to correct her pupils pronunciation and grammer - 'three' not 'tree' etc and also 'I seen', I done, 'them books'. (And seems to do it in good humoured manner drawing a tree on the board instead of 3. No teacher! Laughs all round.)

To those who advocate the approach to pronunciation of "no right or wrong way" I ask: Do you think my friend should abandon her efforts? (Should she also allow the bad grammar go unchecked?)
If your child was in her class would you be happy for the child to go uncorrected?

If you agree that this teacher's corrections are appropriate then you are, in effect, admitting there is a 'better' pronunciation.

Does she do the same with kids who don't aspirate their WH sounds also, drawing a wight when they mean white?

P. Breathnach · 23-10-2012 10:04AM

two wheels good wrote: »

...
To those who advocate the approach to pronunciation of "no right or wrong way"

I am not sure that anybody here is taking that position. Some of us (well, this one of us, but I think I am not alone) are unwilling to take the position that a dialect pronunciation is a "wrong" pronunciation.

I ask: Do you think my friend should abandon her efforts?

Yes, if it involves declaring the child's home dialect to be invalid or inferior.

(Should she also allow the bad grammar go unchecked?)

Red herring.

If your child was in her class would you be happy for the child to go uncorrected?

I'm not at that life stage, so I'll take that as a hypothetical question. I would be unhappy if a teacher disapproved of the accent my child acquired at home and said that it was "wrong".

If you agree that this teacher's corrections are appropriate then you are, in effect, admitting there is a 'better' pronunciation.

Just one better pronunciation? I don't have a particularly acute ear for accents, but I can identify several types of generic Irish middle class accent.

two wheels good · 26-10-2012 10:04PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Does she do the same with kids who don't aspirate their WH sounds also, drawing a wight when they mean white?

I don't know. I'll ask her. Personally, I'd say it might a lower priority and sometimes best to judge when pushing the corrections too much may be counter-productive.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am not sure that anybody here is taking that position. Some of us (well, this one of us, but I think I am not alone) are unwilling to take the position that a dialect pronunciation is a "wrong" pronunciation.

Yes, if it involves declaring the child's home dialect to be invalid or inferior.

Red herring.

I'm not at that life stage, so I'll take that as a hypothetical question. I would be unhappy if a teacher disapproved of the accent my child acquired at home and said that it was "wrong".

Just one better pronunciation? I don't have a particularly acute ear for accents, but I can identify several types of generic Irish middle class accent.

Once again I say: This has nothing to do with accent - or identity. It is a matter of pronunciation and clarity.

I'm expect there are some parents in the class who are very pleased to hear of the teacher's diligence in an area all too often overlooked.

A children realising its parent doesn't know everything shouldn't be a bad thing. A family aspiring for better (that word again) things for the children is to be encouraged.

I don't think the bad grammar , 'I seen, I done' etc is a red herring at all. Seems part of the (so precious) dialect to me.

Stheno · 26-10-2012 10:17PM

Curly Judge wrote: »

I just find it inelegant and uncultured.
Don't know why, as I didn't have what you might describe as an Oxbridge upbringing, having been born and reared in the Irish Midlands.

N17er wrote: »

Curly Judge wrote: »

half - wit son of an illiterate bogman?
QUOTE]

You'd prefer to sound like a west brit descendant of the landed gentry?

I'm also from the Midlands, and after years of working with non Irish people, and working abroad, I've altered my language to get rid of colloquial english and to speak very clearly so as not to confuse people or have a lack of understanding.

I probably do sound very "BBC news" presenter, but it means people understand what I say and I don't have to stop and explain.

DesperateDan · 26-10-2012 10:20PM

I'm scottish and my girlfriend is Irish, I'm always making fun of her for pronouncing stuff wrong / different to what I know.

A couple things I've noticed apart from the obvious lack of 'th's etc. is that her and MANY Irish people weirdly pronounce the word cheddar wrong. They say cheather (like feather). And instead of the river Thames being pronounced Tems it's always pronounced Thems - like the e sound is right, but no need to bother fixing the first half of the word so they leave in the h. (Although I get that one is understandable because it's just spelt wrong to begin with!)

I know those are weird words that don't come up much I just found it interesting that people stick in 'th's there when there is none, and it's usually the opposite

Others I know say 'agen' instead of against - although I understand saying 'kittle' instead of 'kettle' like a country bumpkin, but dropping whole syllables is weird to me! (There's actually loads more I just can't think of any right now!)

Mearings · 29-10-2012 11:55AM

DesperateDan wrote: »

A couple things I've noticed apart from the obvious lack of 'th's etc. is that her and MANY Irish people weirdly pronounce the word cheddar wrong. They say cheather (like feather).[QUOTE}

or
A couple of things that I have noticed, apart from the obvious lack of the th sound, is that she and many Irish people pronounce the word chaddar incorrectly.

Why can't we get our th sounds right.

Comments