4 ms·

I think certain sounds are hard for Western speakers to pronounce, while others are easy. Specifically, Hindi (and many other Sanskrit-derived languages) distin

I think certain sounds are hard for Western speakers to pronounce, while others are easy. Specifically, Hindi (and many other Sanskrit-derived languages) distinguish between some sounds (which have correspondingly different characters in the written script) that are often indistinguishable to Western ears. And if you can't hear the difference, you are unlikely to be able to say it right. These sounds typically come in groups of four. For example, there are 4 "T" sounds in Hindi: त थ ट ठ. If you pronounce each of these correctly, Indian ears will hear 4 distinct sounds. Western ears will typically hear the same sound 4 times. If they are listening attentively the second time around, they may be able to distinguish at most 2 different sounds, but not 4. Given this, Western speakers are unlikely to correctly pronounce a word containing one of these sounds. The good news is that even if a Western speaker has incorrect pronunciation, in the vast majority of cases native Hindi speakers would be able to understand what was meant.. so the communication still happens effectively. Furthermore, regardless of language, I like to believe that most native speakers will very much appreciate efforts to speak the language, no matter how mangled the pronunciation is.

meepmorp 3y ago
> For example, there are 4 "T" sounds in Hindi: त थ ट ठ. Out of curiosity, are these distinguished as alveolar vs retroflex and aspirated vs non-aspirated?
- sbehere 3y ago
  Hmm, I'm not quite sure what those terms mean, but a quick search seems to suggest to me that it is a "Dental" (not alveolar) vs retroflex. See 00:53 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFx3Ly_imY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFx3Ly_imY In that table, त is the first column of the Dental row and थ in the second column of that same row (aspirated?). Similarly, ट is the first column of the Retroflex row and ठ is the second column of that row.
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    The alveolar ridge is a bit behind the upper front teeth, and sometimes people let blade of the tongue (tip plus a bit) rests against that when making a "t" vs against the teeth themselves. But thanks - now I can read a small bit of Hindi!
- kortex 3y ago
  Tldr yes. Not a Hindustani speaker but general linguistics nerd. No idea if HN can handle the IPA modifiers - त - /t̪ə/ - voiceless dental plosive - थ - /t̪ʰə/ - aspirated voiceless dental plosive - ट - /ʈə/ - Voiceless retroflex plosive - ठ - /ʈʰə/ - aspirated Voiceless retroflex plosive t̪ - t with square bracket below is the dental plosive ʰ - superscript h is the aspirations indicator So there are three issues for English speakers: A minor issue: English uses apical plosive /t/ for "t" , while Hindi and related use dental plosive /t̪/. This is a small difference in tongue placement. But these sound similar enough. The bigger issue is English lacks a retroflex plosive (tongue curls), and aspiration is non-phonemic (does not carry a meaningful distinction). English speakers typically aspirate leading plosives and don't aspirate in the middle of words. It's not that native English speakers "can't" hear a difference, it's just way more subtle and likely to be missed unless specifically listening for it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_dental_and_alveolar_plosives https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_dental_and_alveola... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_retroflex_plosive https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_retroflex_plosive
  - sbehere 3y ago
    This is fascinating. Thank you for commenting. As an Indian living in the West, I have always wondered why/how certain differences that are stark to my ears are subtle or barely perceptible to others. The converse is also true. For example, the way native Swedish speakers pronounce seven (sju - example pronunciations at https://forvo.com/word/sju/ https://forvo.com/word/sju/ ) is 1) Hard for me to say and 2) No matter how I say it, the response from Swedes is, "You said <X>; it's actually <X1>" where both <X> and <X1> sound exactly the same to me, so I don't hear the distinction they are trying to point out. I assumed the same happens to Western folks when Indians/Hindi speakers try to explain the difference between the various T sounds. > The bigger issue is English lacks a retroflex plosive (tongue curls), and aspiration is non-phonemic (does not carry a meaningful distinction) But English words do seem to distinguish meaningfully between what you term 'voiceless' and 'aspirated voiceless' isn't it? For example, there is a difference between 'time' and 'thyme'. Ignoring the difference between 'y' and 'i' for a moment, wouldn't both words be the "same" to English speakers if what you are saying is true? Isn't 'th' just the aspirated version of 't'? (Not contesting what you are saying, just curious to understand.)
Keirmot 3y ago
This is true even among western languages. For example, it’s basically impossible for any other western european speaker to say the Portuguese ão sound. First thing I did in my company, which is mostly German, was to abbreviate my name, instead of having multiple people trying their hardest to call me singing I don’t care for, I chose his I’m called in that context.

meepmorp 3y ago

> For example, there are 4 "T" sounds in Hindi: त थ ट ठ. Out of curiosity, are these distinguished as alveolar vs retroflex and aspirated vs non-aspirated?

sbehere 3y ago
Hmm, I'm not quite sure what those terms mean, but a quick search seems to suggest to me that it is a "Dental" (not alveolar) vs retroflex. See 00:53 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFx3Ly_imY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFx3Ly_imY In that table, त is the first column of the Dental row and थ in the second column of that same row (aspirated?). Similarly, ट is the first column of the Retroflex row and ठ is the second column of that row.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  The alveolar ridge is a bit behind the upper front teeth, and sometimes people let blade of the tongue (tip plus a bit) rests against that when making a "t" vs against the teeth themselves. But thanks - now I can read a small bit of Hindi!
kortex 3y ago
Tldr yes. Not a Hindustani speaker but general linguistics nerd. No idea if HN can handle the IPA modifiers - त - /t̪ə/ - voiceless dental plosive - थ - /t̪ʰə/ - aspirated voiceless dental plosive - ट - /ʈə/ - Voiceless retroflex plosive - ठ - /ʈʰə/ - aspirated Voiceless retroflex plosive t̪ - t with square bracket below is the dental plosive ʰ - superscript h is the aspirations indicator So there are three issues for English speakers: A minor issue: English uses apical plosive /t/ for "t" , while Hindi and related use dental plosive /t̪/. This is a small difference in tongue placement. But these sound similar enough. The bigger issue is English lacks a retroflex plosive (tongue curls), and aspiration is non-phonemic (does not carry a meaningful distinction). English speakers typically aspirate leading plosives and don't aspirate in the middle of words. It's not that native English speakers "can't" hear a difference, it's just way more subtle and likely to be missed unless specifically listening for it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_dental_and_alveolar_plosives https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_dental_and_alveola... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_retroflex_plosive https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_retroflex_plosive
- sbehere 3y ago
  This is fascinating. Thank you for commenting. As an Indian living in the West, I have always wondered why/how certain differences that are stark to my ears are subtle or barely perceptible to others. The converse is also true. For example, the way native Swedish speakers pronounce seven (sju - example pronunciations at https://forvo.com/word/sju/ https://forvo.com/word/sju/ ) is 1) Hard for me to say and 2) No matter how I say it, the response from Swedes is, "You said <X>; it's actually <X1>" where both <X> and <X1> sound exactly the same to me, so I don't hear the distinction they are trying to point out. I assumed the same happens to Western folks when Indians/Hindi speakers try to explain the difference between the various T sounds. > The bigger issue is English lacks a retroflex plosive (tongue curls), and aspiration is non-phonemic (does not carry a meaningful distinction) But English words do seem to distinguish meaningfully between what you term 'voiceless' and 'aspirated voiceless' isn't it? For example, there is a difference between 'time' and 'thyme'. Ignoring the difference between 'y' and 'i' for a moment, wouldn't both words be the "same" to English speakers if what you are saying is true? Isn't 'th' just the aspirated version of 't'? (Not contesting what you are saying, just curious to understand.)

Keirmot 3y ago

This is true even among western languages. For example, it’s basically impossible for any other western european speaker to say the Portuguese ão sound. First thing I did in my company, which is mostly German, was to abbreviate my name, instead of having multiple people trying their hardest to call me singing I don’t care for, I chose his I’m called in that context.