Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: pronuncia di "OF"

Ciao,
non ho capito come mai molti pronunciano
"of" proprio come e' scritto ("of") ed altri
come "ov".
Ad esempio il nome "massachusetts institute of technology"
molti pronunciano "of" cosi' come e' scritto...
Come regolarsi?

 Come regolarsi?
of  -> 'ov'
off -> 'of'
-- 
pinko(at)
people.it


Chi sono questi "molti"?
Of = ov
bye
GFC


Ho visto un documentario in cui vengono
intervistati degli importanti informatici americani
che hanno lavorato al MIT. Ebbene, il video e'
doppiato in italiano e la parola "of" di
"massachusetts institute of technology"
e' pronunciata proprio "of".
Anche in altri filmati visti in televisione
c'e' chi pronuncia "of" allo stesso modo...


 e' pronunciata proprio "of".
E' doppiato in Italiano. Ovviamente hanno italianizzato Of perchè in
Italia spesso un'ottima pronuncia viene confusa con la voglia di farsi
vedere, come si suol dire "di fare gli sboroni". Questo anche nei
film, telefilm, show e documentari. Purtroppo.
Saluti


No, secondo me in questo caso ha proprio ragione Ant. Se isolo la
parola "of" allora è vero che si pronuncia /ov/ ma se la pronuncio
vicino alla sorda /t/ di Technology, è assolutamente naturale che la
consonante /v/ si assimili e perda l'elemento sonoro, suonando come
una /f/; provate a pronunciare il nome a velocità normale e non
facendoci caso. E' la stessa ragione per cui, per es., il suffisso -
ed, che "normalmente" ha una pronuncia /d/ si adatta all'ambito e
diventa /t/ accanto ad una consonante sorda.
Ciao
Claudia


Si, sono d'accordo anch'io, e' un fenomeno comune in inglese che si chiama 
devoicing e che
porta /z/->/s/ , /D/->/T/ e, appunto, /v/->/f/.
O meglio, /z/, /D/ /v/ fonematicamente sono ancora le stesse ma pronunciate 
senza vibrazioni
delle corde vocali, il che le fa sentire quasi uguali a /s/, /T/ e /f/. Ad 
esempio, succede anche con
la /z/ di "dogs" , che diventa quasi quasi indistinguibile da /dogs/.
Essendo un fenomeno a livello fonetico e non fonematico, non mi stupirei se 
i madrelingua dicessero
che per loro i suoni sono ancora quelli con il voicing.
E' una cosa spiegata in diversi manuali di fonetica, prova anche su 
wikipedia.
Lorenzo

 molti pronunciano "of" cosi' come e' scritto...
Of course!
Cheers,
Enrico il Pentolaio.

 wrote in message
news:fgr2b9$c2c$1...@nnrp-beta.newsland.it...

If I were Russian, I would luff to agree that "ov" is pronounced "of" here,
but as a native English speaker, I cannot.
I don't think you will find a professor or student from MIT who doesn't say
"...Institute ov Technology"; unless he is one of the many professors or
students with a thick Russian accent, or a very lazy speaker. The "of"
instead of "ov" sound is characteristic of this type of speaker of English.
The rules of his native language may dictate such a mandatory shift to a
native Russian speaker of English, but the rules of English for a native
speaker do not.
Of course, there are some exceptions, such as "hafto" instead of "have to",
but these have more to do with colloquial speech than phonetics.
Native speakers of English do differentiate between the minimally
voiced "v" and the complete lack of voicing characteristic of Russians
who to some seem destined to liff to carry on the tradition of unvoicing
all final consonants.
You hear what you want to hear, or what you think you ought to hear, and
repeat it.
I would never cite wikipedia as an authority, even uncapitalized.
Joe from Massachusetts

 If I were Russian, I would luff to agree
Comrade Josef! ;D
-- 

 wrote in message

I'm not putting into question the fact that you differentiate between
the consonant in "of" and in "off" because you put more force on this
last one in any context, nor do you linger on "of"  long enough to
actually hear ... how can I say .... the "full f" you'd hear in a
foreign accent but, having read (and often forgotten) about phonetics
other than what is found in w(W)ikipedia I don't think Lorenzo's
explanation is unscientific. EIP's example is also very effective; in
fast (sloppy if you want) speech you often drop the "o"  and I can't
imagine saying /'vcourse/ We're not talking "rules" here, we're
talking about what is natural (ok, sloppy if you want...) , and making
the vocal cords vibrate for an unimportant consonant isn't really,
even if you think you are.
I remember reading that phonetic measurements proved that we actually
pronounce a very small percentage of what we imagine we do.
On a side note (maybe OT)  wonder how many Italian speakers would say
that the -n- in "cane" and "canguro" are different...
Ciao
Claudia

 wrote in message

I agree.  Aside from the fact that I hardly hear anyone say
"Massachusetts Institute of Technology", it would sound really strange
to say "oF technology".
Ari

 to say "oF technology".
Sarà colpa del mio orecchio, ma a me, quando sento "of course" da un 
madrelingua, mi pare chiaramente di sentire una f...

 madrelingua, mi pare chiaramente di sentire una f...
E' solo perché non ci hai mai fatto caso. Facci caso... e al limite Amplifon 
è tuo amico 8-)
Laz 


I've examined the wave forms relative to "off" and "of course", and I 
confirm that the first portion of "off" and "of course" are almost 
identical (i.e. they present the same characteristics) and sound alike.
Kiuhnm

 alike. 
I think you may be off course.
Laz

 wrote in message
news:1194471673....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

If I were to revert to the language I spoke in my old neighborhood, I might
say "da Massachusetts Instituda Technology", without any consonant at all.
The British do the same thing with "cup of tea", saying "cuppa tea", or even
"cuppa". If I try to say "of Technology" with an unvoiced consonant, I sound
to myself like I'm imitating a comedian posing as a mad scientist from some
mysterious Eastern European country. Even when whispering the "v" sound does
not revert to an "f" sound. To me, there are only two choices - voiced
consonant, or no consonant at all.
Joe from Massachusetts
Joe from Massachusetts


I believe not. "of course" and "off course" sound different but not 
because one sound 'v' and the other 'f'. The sound is practically the 
same, only less (or more) stressed and prolonged.
Kiuhnm

 that the -n- in "cane" and "canguro" are different...
I certainly wouldn't presume to comment on how Americans pronounce the name 
of the MIT , but I do agree with Claudia that (at any rate in UK English) 
before a 't' it's common enough in casual speech to hear the 'f'' (of 'of') 
as unvoiced as in the word 'often' (and a full range of variations up to a 
fully-voiced consonant) .
Mike 


It is unimportant consonants which separate "have truth" from "half truth".
Each is easily recognized by the native ear, and easily produced by the
native speaker.
Joe


It is not a question of how Americans pronounce MIT, but of what sound the
word "of" represents. It represents only one sound, "uv", an always voiced,
never unvoiced consonant, whenever and wherever it occurs. If the word "of"
is pronounced in any way other than "uv", it represents a defect on the part
of the speaker. There may be some dialects in the UK where this is not the
case, but that is another question.
Just as Americans studying Russian find it difficult to grasp the fact that
the letter "v" in the patronymics "Ivanov" and "Ivanova" is pronounced two
different ways (Ivanoff and Ivanova), and insist on hearing and saying
"Ivanov" and "Ivanova", so foreigners insist on hearing the "f" sound in the
word "of" where it does not exist.
Joe from Massachusetts

 wrote in message
news:47332431$0$10624$4faf...@reader2.news.tin.it...

Absolutely untrue. "Of" is always pronounced with the voiced consonant "v",
and "off" is always pronounced with the voiceless consonant "f". Waveform
analysis and phonetic representation by IPA or other methods cannot show the
differences in a way which is of any help to a non-native speaker. Only by
repeated listening to and imitation of native speakers can a student learn
to perceive the differences.
Most students of a foreign language rely primarily on texts and non-native
instructors, which is why they never acquire a good accent.
The FSI series of foreign language courses for Americans is based on
teaching a solid grasp of phonetics which is reinforced by constant
repetition and imitation. The courses are time-consuming and repetitive, but
they achieve excellent results in the acquisition of a near-native accent.
The following is a warning in the introduction to one of these courses, in
which students are alerted to the danger of relying on the written word
instead of the material recorded by a native speaker.
"On no account should the student attempt to use these
materials without either a native instructor or recordings of a native
instructor's voice. The method of instruction incorporates guided
imitation, repetition, memorization, pattern practice, and conversation."
Joe from Massachusetts

 "v",
By the way, what about the vowel in "of", in American English? 
In its strong form, is it pronounced like the vowel in "cup", as the Oxford
Advanced Learner's dictionary mantains?
-- 

 wrote in message
news:xn0fdkx7h...@news.lillathedog.net...

In my area of the US, yes.
Joe from Massachusetts

 native speaker.
Sorry to insist, but Mike's message was a relief for me and has given
me the courage to continue...
UNimportant means not important and, in your example, the consonant IS
important; that means that there will be a brief pause between the two
words to ensure that you separate the words and hear the /v/ sound;
redunancy is, in any case, also guaranteed by the different vowel, at
least in British English. I can assure you that, even though I'm a
foreigner, i can hear the difference very well and could even, hear
hear, pronounce it.... (we're not all Russians and we don't all have a
bad ear....)
If I have to distinguish between "of course" and "off course" it is,
in my opinion, not the voicing of the consonant that makes a
difference but the length of the vowel in "off", the strength of the /
f/,  the stress on both words as opposed to the single stress in "of
course", and the brief pause between "off" and "course".
As for the consonant, it's similar to what happens with doubles in
Italian -  e.g "a fare" and "affare" are different because of the
strength of the double /f/ and not because one consonoant is voiceless
and the other isn't.
Ah! And even between "a change of course" and "of course" =
"certainly" the consonant is slightly different, because in the first
case the  preposition sticks to the voiced / / and retains voicing...
Sure I will never have neither a native ear nor a native
pronunciation. A documentary I saw said that we are universal
listeners only up to the age of eight months; then we lose the ability
to discriminate and therefore learn absolutely any sound in any
language. But this is not a case of click sounds or Chinese tones and
not even of sounds that do not exist in both languages (for example
the Spanish don't have the sound /z/ and tend to pronounce all "esses"
as voiceless).  Assimilation, devoicing, voiced and voiceless
consonants, even double consonants exist in Italian and English alike.
And I do pay attention, I have a good musical ear and I wouldn't have
insisted if, in my long experience with native speakers from many
countries, I hadn't at times heard the difference between  "of course"
and "of any".
The poor guy who started this post must be bored stiff by now. How
about saying MIT anyway.... ? :-)
Claudia

 Sure I will never have *neither* a native ear *nor* a native pronunciation.
Of course I meant *either* and *or* :-S


Da Massachoosits Institud a Technology
Joe from Massachusetts


From a native-speaker perspective you are perfectly right and for
all practical purposes a foreign speaker need to know no more:
Of == ov
Still, from a linguistic point of view, I think one may say
something more. My point is that not all sounds that a
native speaker perceives as referring to "the same sound"
(they encode the same phoneme), may still have
differences which can be scientifically identified and that,
in other languages, may also bear a phonematic significance
(i.e., they may be different phoneme, not only different phones).
For example, from a native-speaker perspective,
the vowel sound of "bird" is the same of the one in "bert", although
one is noticeably longer that the other ("pre-fortis clipping").
Or, for instance, in some accents of British English of the London
area (and increasingly in RP) "wholly" and "holy" don't sound the same,
because the vowel sound is different.
Anyway the important thing is that differences cannot be used to distinguish
pair of words so, in a sense, they are irrelevant.
The of/ov issue has nothing to do with the fact that "of" is spelt with an 
"f".
It's a general process that occurs whever a voiced consonant (b d g dZ v D z 
Z)
occurs in certain positions (word final, or between voiceless consonants) 
and thus
*may* receive incomplete voicing and thus become closer to the unvoiced
corresponding consonants (p t k tS f T s S).
I'm not a linguistic and I respect your native-speaker opinion, but I'm 
reasonably
sure of what I'm saying as it's a matter treated in several textbooks.
Lorenzo 

 consonant, or no consonant at all.
If I may revert my thesis, I'd like to say that I was doing some 
pronunciation exercises and I noticed something more about "off course" 
and "of course". Now it seems quite obvious.
In "off course" the sound /v/ is absent while it's present in "of 
course", even if for a very brief moment. I know, I'm a genius! No, 
seriously, let me use some non-standard symbols: "off course" is 
/o/->/f/->/k/, while "of course" is /o/->/v/->/f/->/k/. The /v/ sound is 
almost swallowed by the subsequent /f/ sound, but it's right there, 
therefore we should be able to tell "off course" and "of course" apart 
even if we pronounced them with equal stress and timing.
Kiuhnm

 I'm not a linguistic 
linguist :)
-- 

 wrote in message 
news:fhj286$rjg$1...@nnrp-beta.newsland.it...

Well , I'm a native speaker (UK) , who hasn't spoken dialect since I was a 
boy , and I hear and use 'of' with an unvoiced 'f' ; only occasionally , 
because obviously in most situations it's voiced . The spelling is 
irrelevant ; and the 'f' is voiced if you're speaking slowly and 
deliberately , so there's something of a separation from the unvoiced 
consonant (usually 't' , maybe 'f' or 's') which follows ; but , as someone 
just pointed out in another post , English speakers are characteristically 
lazy in comparison to Italians . etc., so in more rapid speech it may be 
left unvoiced . Whether this is a defect which contravenes the rules of 
language simply raises the usual question of whence these rules arise and 
what judgements are to be made when they collide with the facts of usage . 
Laziness may be a fault , but (though I'm no linguist) it strikes me that 
laziness has played its part in how the language has been shaped 
(assimilation of final letter of prefixes , etc.) .
Mike 

 wrote in message
news:5q6pqlF...@mid.individual.net...

When I'm lazy or maybe "in my cups", I tend to drop the consonant in "of"
altogether, rather than unvoice it.
Anotha bottla stout, bartender.  :>)
Joe from Massachusetts

 wrote in message
news:473dd2b9$0$37198$4faf...@reader3.news.tin.it...

My guess is that the native ear may not depend totally on detecting the "v"
sound in "of" for recognition, even when the speaker has created the sound,
but our comprehension is aided by the context - the quality of vowel that
precedes it, what type of consonant follows it, etc., so that we may only
think we hear the sound, because we expect it in that context. I wouldn't be
a bit surprised if the "v" in the "of" of a baritone's "of course" might be
much more discernible than an alto's "v", but I don't have a baritone or
even a spectrum analyzer handy to check out that theory.
Joe from Massachusetts

 wrote in message
news:e%r%i.255$hV...@newsfe19.lga...

When I was learning Italian, I had a good friend who had a cleft palate,
which had a very profound effect on his speech. I had no trouble at all
understanding him when he spoke Italian. The brain somehow develops new
rules which it uses to recognize an alternate phonetic system, converting
distorted sounds and filling in missing sounds. Amazing thing, the human
brain. Amazing thing, human language.
Joe from Massachusetts

 brain. Amazing thing, human language.
Mnay are the tginhs we tkae for grnaetd, and we diecvosr how diflicfut 
they rllaey are olny wehn we meet somneoe who cna't do tehm.
Knhuim

 brain. Amazing thing, human language.
That's also why I discovered I have an accent (in Italian) only when I 
heard the recording of my own voice. Scary...
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message
news:473ecdb1$0$4790$4faf...@reader4.news.tin.it...

Today a child born with a cleft palate will have very little or no speech
impediment as an adult, due to the numerous early corrective surgical
interventions which are now standard for the defect. The American actor
Stacy Keach, who was born with a cleft palate, has narrated many television
series. He has a vestigial scar on his lip which many people probably don't
even notice. However, many children born during the war years in Europe, as
my friend was, never received these extensive reconstructive surgeries, and
were left with serious life-long speech impediments, and very noticeable
scars.
Joe from Massachusetts

 Joe from Massachusetts
Amazing that we end up agreeing too! :-) (this refers to all your last
messages)
Claudia

 wrote in message

Thanks Mike and Lorenzo, because you have expressed much better what I
was trying to say.
:-)
Claudia

 wrote in message 
news:grr%i.49$bi1...@newsfe15.lga...

He-he! Though I don't just do it when I'm p***ed . 'Another cup 'f tea , 
love' .
Mike 

 wrote in message
news:5q9au2F...@mid.individual.net...

My Irish mother always said cuppa, about twenty times every day.
Joe from Massachusetts

 wrote in message 
news:p3%%i.181$sM1...@newsfe16.lga...

Yes , 'a cuppa' over here means 'a cup o tea' , and I may have said that , 
but , oddly perhaps , I never say 'a cuppa tea' , though you'd certainly 
hear it often enough listening to , say , a cockney soap like 'Eastenders' 
(save the mark!) ; to me , it seems too sloppy , though perhaps I sometimes 
come closer than I realise to eliding the 'f' altogether .
Mike

 wrote in message
news:5qbh9qF...@mid.individual.net...

She always said "cuppa" but never by itself, always with "tay", and not
"tea".
Joe from Massachusetts


No.
Joe from Massachusetts


No.
Joe from Massachusetts


3
It all depends on the context.
Here in the US, it would not be uncommon to have several uncles, each of
whom could be of a different ethnic origin.
Joe from Massachusetts

 uncle" mean?
Se vuoi cambiare *completamente* discorso, inizia un nuovo thread o almeno
cambia Subject.
Ciao. :)
fup2 it.cultura.cybersocieta
-- 

 about saying MIT anyway.... ? :-)
[cut]
It's true, I'm a little confused now...