4 ms·
As a romanian speaker, I would transliterate the "ssrksxt" as "sîrxt", which contains the vowel "î" (similar to the turkish "ı"). Inserting that vowel between s
by victorNicollet 11y ago
As a romanian speaker, I would transliterate the "ssrksxt" as "sîrxt", which contains the vowel "î" (similar to the turkish "ı"). Inserting that vowel between some consonants is how we pronounce what would otherwise be consonant-heavy words.
Following the same rules, "I meet" is pronounced "ntmpin" (spelled întâmpin), and "song" is pronounced "cnt" (spelled cânt).
- msravi 11y agoExactly. The audio sample on the page does exactly this. And yet, astonishingly, the author goes on to state: "...these types of syllables, astonishingly, really do not contain any vowels, epenthetic or otherwise" when in fact, there clearly is an epenthetic vowel after the s.
- gliese1337 11y agoYou are being betrayed by your brain's powerful ability to find patterns that aren't there. In this case, it's ability to fudge anything that sounds like speech to fit into the boxes for phonemes that you are familiar with. This what makes getting a good accent in a foreign language hard: if you don't train yourself properly, you won't be able to hear the correct pronunciations, let alone reproduce them consistently. The article addresses exactly this point, and acknowledges that plenty of other linguists already argued for it. The counter argument is "I fed this into a spectral analyzer, and there are no vowels on the spectrograph." Care to claim your ears are more accurate than the computer?