tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post5874726331807971673..comments2024-03-17T09:14:13.950+00:00Comments on John Wells’s phonetic blog: that'd be OKJohn Wellshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-90529088424511060702011-11-16T07:40:55.165+00:002011-11-16T07:40:55.165+00:00PS: Kensuke Nanjo points out that the Genius Engli...PS: Kensuke Nanjo points out that the Genius English-Japanese Dictionary, fourth edition (2006), of which he is the Phonetics Editor, records both a strong form and a weak form of "that'd", in each case with a schwa between /t/ and /d/. <br />Excellent!John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-71642865680549299572011-11-16T07:35:40.568+00:002011-11-16T07:35:40.568+00:00Wiseman: yes, of course. If you looked up "yo...Wiseman: yes, of course. If you looked up "you'd" etc in LPD, where they have their own entries, you'd find the weak forms. (Incidentally, I naturally write them in the modern way as <b>jud</b> etc rather than <b>jʊd</b>, since the weak forms of these pronouns have the happY and thankyOU vowels rather than KIT and FOOT as such.)<br /><br />There is no problem with successive weak forms.John Wellshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13684304410735867148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-63453489187578302252011-11-15T22:00:37.728+00:002011-11-15T22:00:37.728+00:00So, "you'd", "he'd", &...So, "you'd", "he'd", "she'd", "we'd" are pronounced [ju:d], [hi:d], [ʃi:d], [wi:d].<br /><br />But, couldn't they be (also) [jʊd], [hId], [ʃId], [wId]?<br /><br />I'm not a native speaker, but I normally say, for example, "[jʊd bI] surprised", "[hId] gone away", etc. Am I wrong?<br /><br />In other words, can't both the pronoun and the verb be reduced (weak)?<br /><br />More generally speaking, I personally tend to use two, three and even four or five weak forms in succession ("I know [ðət hId bI] right", or "[ðət hId bI ðə] winner"). What do native speakers do?Italo arditohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02765182984634579556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-43474199343841498712011-11-15T17:37:45.427+00:002011-11-15T17:37:45.427+00:00I associate the monosyllabic versions with AmE; es...I associate the monosyllabic versions with AmE; especially "It'd be nice if...". Just an impression.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-80472908630366483822011-11-15T13:46:16.546+00:002011-11-15T13:46:16.546+00:00Interesting -- after doing a bit of thinking, I...Interesting -- after doing a bit of thinking, I'm reasonably sure I always say ðæd for a contraction of "that would", but never for "that had". In the latter case I think it's ˈðæt əd, even though I generally flap in such contexts. Perhaps it's even ˈðæt həd; I don't think I like to contract "that had" like I do "that would".Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13845139257399756782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-83970537348685971332011-11-15T13:30:09.226+00:002011-11-15T13:30:09.226+00:00A similar example is that've etc. I notice tha...A similar example is that've etc. I notice that native speakers often write "of" rather than "'ve", at least in web forums.<br /><br />And in what styles is it usual to write contracted forms? It's probably to easy to just say less formal than more formal. It's also probably indvidual. Forums, emails, SMS text, private letters. Less private letters? Depends on you and who you're writing to. For publication? The editor would have the last word.Sidney Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01138711082469220983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-7460736280525000502011-11-15T12:43:46.095+00:002011-11-15T12:43:46.095+00:00Beatrice
Personally, I wouldn't.Beatrice<br /><br />Personally, I wouldn't.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-87847069785271334612011-11-15T12:38:55.733+00:002011-11-15T12:38:55.733+00:00David:
Would you reduce that phrase to ðəbbɪn ...David: <br />Would you reduce that phrase to ðəbbɪn 'ðɛə... (following the ˈðæbbi əʊˈkeɪ example mentioned by John) or would it be necessary for the initial "that" to be stressed?Beatrice Portinarihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13626472955669713053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-377103124456226005.post-67300971225812388112011-11-15T11:29:45.778+00:002011-11-15T11:29:45.778+00:00I think that if I reduce the that as well as the w...I think that if I reduce the <i>that</i> as well as the <i>would</i> in <i>that had been there before</i>, I feel impelled to assimilate to <b>ðətəbbɪn 'ðɛə bɪ'fɔ:</b> — and probably reduce to <b>ðətəbɪn</b>.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.com