Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 January 5

= January 5 =

How does the American accent make a distinction between "can't take" and "can take" (the stress being on "can")?
If the Americans say "I kn take it", then no confusion arises. However, if they want to put the stress on "can", then how can they make sure that the listener does not hear: "I can't take it" - which means quite the opposite? Note that this problem does not arise in the British accent. 77.124.232.245 (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is neither the American accent nor the British accent (compare received pronunciation, Cockney, Scots). At least some US accents use less word linking than e.g. Oxford English, so that it's easier to assign the syllables to individual words. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course there are some American accents, but I'm talking about the average. Almost all of (or most of) the Americans say "can't" like "can" but with a "t" at the end, don't they? Anyways, I didn't understand your answer, and I still wonder: what should the American speaker do, to make sure that the listener hears: "can take" (the stress being on "can") rather than "can't take"? 77.124.232.245 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem certainly does arise in the British accent, just ask any Scott or someone from northern England. My experience in Yorkshire is if there is danger of misunderstanding the speaker emphasises the "can't" and makes sure that the two t's are fully pronounced (by a slight pause) . -- Q Chris (talk)
 * You explained what the speaker - who wants to say "can't take" - should do, to make sure that the listener does not hear "can take". However, my question has been about the opposite case: what should the speaker do, to make sure that the listener hears: "can take" (the stress being on "can") rather than "can't take"? 77.124.232.245 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically the same, the Can would be emphasised and a pause to ensure the words are separated. This would be done if someone anticipated the misunderstanding, not in normal speech, for example:
 * A: "you can take that leaflet home" (hurriedly)
 * B: "Sorry, I didn't catch that"
 * A: "you CAN take that leaflet home, all these leaflets are free. (more slowly and deliberate)
 * I should add that this is all personal observation. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When you say: /kæn...teik/ with a pause between the words, you may still be heard like a person who says "can't take" without a pause between the words. 77.124.232.245 (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience unlikely, but if you were really worried you could always use different words (you aren't allowed to take..., its not possible to take ...., etc.) -- Q Chris (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My question has been about "can't" - rather than about "not allowed to" and likewise.
 * Anyways, is there any difference between:
 * 1. pronouncing "can take" with a pause after the "can", and:
 * 2. pronouncing "can't take" without a pause after the "can't"?
 * If there is such a difference, could you describe it literally?
 * 77.124.232.245 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the difference is the emphasis and the pause. If someone were emphasising "Can't" in the way you would if you were making sure you were not understood then they would certainly separate the t's. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect I didn't understand your answer: Note that I've been talking about a "can't take" whose t's are not separated. May this "can't take" be different from a "can take" whose t's are separated? 77.124.232.245 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that the context and emphasis "you CAN take" or "you CAN'T take" would key the listener to expect the speaker to be careful about separating the t's. If you are asking whether its possible to deceive a user by adding emphasis and pronouncing unseparated t's (like someone telling the "twenty sick sheep in a field" joke) then the answer is yes they could. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as the British accent in Yorkshire (and in northern England) is concerned. However, the Americans here, who have joined this thread, have claimed something different: they've claimed that "can take" is pronounced /kænteɪk/, whereas "can't take" is pronounced (in US) /kæʔteɪk/ or /keɪnteɪk/. Do you know of anything similar in Yorkshire or in northern England? 77.127.158.82 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I am not sure, I don't really understand the distinction they are talking about in the nasal release and nasal stop. There could be some subtle difference I'm not noticing because it is usually easy to hear the difference between "can" and "cant" even if they are both followed by a 't' in fast speech. -- Q Chris (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In most American dialects, even those in which unstressed can is pronounced /kɪn/ or /kən/, stressed can't is pronounced /kænt/. (In stereotypical backwoods dialects, it is often /keɪnt/.) Listen to Lena Lamont's attempts to learn to say "I can't stand him!" in a "cultured" accent in Singin' in the Rain; even in her exaggerated "normal" speech, the can't is understandable. Deor (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, so the Americans say "can't" like "can" but with a "t" at the end, don't they? Anyways, I didn't understand your answer, and I still wonder: what should the American speaker do, to make sure that the listener hears: "can take" (the stress being on "can") rather than "can't take"? 77.124.232.245 (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The can fully release the "n". A fully released "n" sounds quite different from an alveolar stop to an American ear. Foreigners may not hear the difference, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect you didn't understand my question. Of course "can" and "can't" are not pronounced the same way, and I notice the difference well. However, I'm not talking about "can't", but rather about "can't take", which is supposed to be pronounced /kænteik/, isn't it? Now, if the Americans want to say "can't take", they can simply say "can't", and then they can stop for a moment - before saying "take", so that no confusion arises. However, I was not talking about Americans who want to say "can't take", but rather about Americans who want to say "can take": They are supposed to say /kænteik/, aren't they? Alternatively, they can stop between the two words, i.e. they can say /kæn...teik/. However, even when you say: /kæn...teik/, this may still be heard: "can't take" - i.e like a person who says "can't take" without a pause between the words, so my question is still relevant: what should the American speaker do, to make sure that the listener hears: "can take" (the stress being on "can") rather than "can't take"? 77.124.232.245 (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did understand your question, and answered it. I said that they can fully release the "n". Accented "can take" and "can't take" are pronounced /kæn...(alveolar release)...teik/ and /kæn...(alveolar stop)...teik/, repectively. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Does Wikipedia have any article that deals with the difference between a nasal release and a nasal stop? I was looking for the phrase "nasal release", but - unfortunately - I found nothing. If you can give a link, I'll appreciate it.
 * Additionaly, can you give a pair of English words being identical except for their kind of nasal consonant (nasal release vs. nasal stop)? 77.124.232.245 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised no one has mentioned this so far, but the American pronunciation of can't is quite distinct from that of can. Now, the vowel(s) involved vary from one region to another; this tends to be a nasalized diphthong in most American English varieties when can or can't is stressed. The components of the diphthong vary regionally. Unlike British English, the vowel (diphthong) in can is identical or nearly identical to the vowel (diphthong) in can't in most varieties (though as someone else has said, some varieties have [eɪ] as the vowel in can't and a different diphthong in can).  However, I think that the syllable codas are distinct and fairly universal across American English.  Can ends in [n].  Can't ends in a glottal stop [ʔ].  So, for example in my variety of American English, can take is [kʲɛæ~n teɪk], while can't take is [kʲɛæ~ʔ teɪk].  (I can't find a way to put the tilde over the vowels where it belongs to indicate nasalization.)  The difference in pronunciation is, I think, easy to hear.  Marco polo (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. How about "can't find"? Is it pronounced [kʲɛæ~ʔt faind]?
 * 2. If it is, then: can it also be pronounced [kʲɛæ~nt faind]?
 * 3. If it can, then: can also "can't take" be pronounced [kʲɛæ~nt teɪk]?
 * 4. If it can, then my original question arises again. However, if your answer to my first question or to my third question is "NO", then one must conclude that the pronunciation of "can't" may vary according to the following word. I will have no further questions - only if your answer to my second question is "NO".
 * 77.127.158.82 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Some linguistic ideas that have not been brought up which is relevent to this discussion is the ideas of gemination and minimal pairs. Gemination has some relevent discussion on the matter.  "Can take" and "Can't take" are a perfect example of a minimal pair, that is two words whose pronounciations differ only by a single phoneme.  In this case, the phoneme is what happens between the "n" and the "t".  As mentioned several times above, "Can take" is spoken with a full release between the "n" and "t" sounds, so they appear as seperate phonemes.  In "Can't take" the nt appears together as sort of a "double-barreled consonant", as it does in words like "rant".  The Gemination article brings up the minimal pairs of "night train" and "night rain" as another example; in this case the difference is in the "tr" letters; in "night rain" the t-r is prounounced with a full release between them.  In "night train" the tr sound has that "double consonant" feel to it.  -- Jayron  32  18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The distinction between night rain and night train is similar to the one between can take and can't take. As Jayron says, they are both minimal pairs. But I don't think the distinction is really one of gemination in either case.  In can't take, a glottal stop [ʔ] is followed by a [t].  In night train, a glottal stop [ʔ] is likewise followed by a [t].  There's no real gemination there.  A phrase like some man has real gemination. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32, Do you mean (as Marco Polo has expalined above) that "can't take" is pronounced as something similar to /kæʔteɪk/? If it is, then: Is "night train" pronounced as something similar to /naiʔtreɪn/? 77.127.158.82 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, some Americans distinguish them easily by pronouncing can't as if it were spelled cain't, while others distinguish them by pronouncing can't "cahn't" (as in RP). Personally, I distinguish the strong pronunciations of can and can't as [kæ̃ːn] vs. [kæ̃t] or [kæ̃ʔ]. I don't usually have any trouble understanding other Americans when the difference between can and can't is in question, but I do sometimes have difficulty understanding foreigners speaking English, because they may not get all the phonetic cues that are normally subphonemic (vowel length, glottalization with concomitant /n/-deletion, etc.) Angr (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. How about "can't find"? Is it pronounced [kæ̃t faind]? or [kæ̃ʔ faind]?
 * 2. If it is, then: can it also be pronounced [kæ̃nt faind]?
 * 3. If it can, then: can also "can't take" be pronounced [kæ̃nt teɪk]?
 * 4. If it can, then my original question arises again (see the title of this thread). However, if your answer to my first question or to my third question is "NO", then one must conclude that the pronunciation of "can't" may vary according to the following word. I will have no further questions - only if your answer to my second question is "NO". 77.127.158.82 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * [kæ̃ʔ faɪnd] sounds most natural. [kæ̃t faɪnd] sounds unnatural. [kæ̃nt faɪnd] sounds OK but only as a slow, careful pronunciation. If I say can't take with the same level of carefulness as [kæ̃nt faɪnd], there will be an audible release of the first [t] and a rearticulation of the second [t], resulting in something like [kæ̃ntə̥teɪk]. Angr (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To sum up: when referring to those American accents that don't pronounce "can't" like kahnt, "can't" is always pronounced [kæ̃ʔ], or [keɪnt] or according to a third option - that varies according to the following word: If the following word begins with any consonant other than /t/, /d/, then the third option is [kæ̃nt], whereas if the following word begins with a /t/ or a /d/, then the third option is [kæ̃ntə̥].
 * I wonder how it is in the British accents in northern England, where "can't" is not pronounced like kahnt. 77.127.158.82 (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

To the original question, as a Canadian I can hear the difference just fine. Generally the context will be clear, but even if it isn't, the "American accent" isn't an accent to us. One could just as easily ask the same question of other languages: how can Chinese speakers hear the differences in tones? I can't. The answer is that the were trained to hear the difference. 50.98.176.48 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you're trained to hear the difference. The question is whether you can describe the difference literally. 77.127.158.82 (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know you asked it, but the question seemed to me to ask how we can make sure to be clear which we intend to say. The answer is, we don't make sure to be clear because we don't need to make that distinction.  We just can tell the difference.  'Can tell' and 'Can't tell' suffer the same issue you claim. Is there a difference?  Yes.  Can I describe it?  Not really, though the attempts above pretty much cover it. Mingmingla (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, I don't pronounce the 'T' in any of the won't/can't/don't type contractions. Just glottal stops.  Mingmingla (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find myself always wishing during these discussions that someone would just upload some sound clips. Rmhermen (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Something that others have hinted at is that there's usually also a difference in stress/pitch/sentence shape (whatever one wants to call it) involved. In most cases. I'd expect to hear "I can't take it" uttered as "I can't take it", whereas "I can take it" would be "I can take it" or "I can take it" or "I can take it", depending on the context. Deor (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what the OP's misunderstanding is. We pronounce "can take" with one "t" in it, and "can't take" with two "t's" in it. It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's one of the many renderings of a pop song called "Can't Take My Eyes Off You", sung here by Barry Manilow. Perhaps a non-English speaker would have trouble picking up that first "t", which is softer than the second "t", but it's there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, sort of. There's a distinction to be made between phonemes and the actual spoken sound.  American English speakers may recognize two distinct "t"s in a word like that, but really the first t is more like a glottal stop and the second is a voiceless alveolar plosive .  The act of not recognizing the distinction is actually one of those things that makes a native speaker "native", the two sounds are considered identical in a phonemic sense, so unless native speakers are deliberately made aware of the difference, they can go their whole lives without recognizing it.  Consider also the two different "p" sounds in English, which most native speakers don't even realize exist, there's a distinctly different "p" used in a word like "pit" than in a word like "spit", and some languages consider these different phonemes, and will thus regularly notice the difference as being meaningful.  To a native English speaker, they perceive them as identical, because our linguistic minds are trained to treat them as identical, even if they are not.  These types of multiple ways to represent the same phoneme are called Allophones.  -- Jayron  32  19:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... are you saying I only hear it because I already know it's there? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32, instead of interpreting the first t as a glottal stop, would it be true to say that can't take is pronounced like cang take (the g is not pronounced, of course)? 77.127.207.89 (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't pronounce it that way, and I don't imagine any other native speakers do... there's no reason for the /n/ in can/can't to become velar before alveolar consonant /t/. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, do you pronounce the first t (in can't take) like a glottal stop? 87.68.254.92 (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As in the "pat/spat" example. English-speakers dont fail to hear rhe difference between "It's Pat" and "it spat" even if they are speaking quickly, with no pause ("itspat") because they retain some vague awareness from early childhood that the two "p"s are different. So the first "voiced p" is probably at the start of a word, (therefore the word must be Pat) and the second "unvoiced p" is certainly not (so must be spat).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.239.226 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only native speakers. The difference between "it spat" and "itsp hat" is cleary noticed, even when you're not native, unless you're a Russain (and the like), who can't hear "h"s. 87.68.254.92 (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Welsh and cornish languages
What are the differences between welsh and cornish languages? Are they mutually intelligible?--95.247.175.97 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a short discussion here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AWelsh_language/Archive_1 164.36.38.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Just to add to that, on an episode of the BBC's Coast (TV series), a former Breton "Onion Johnny" said that they preferred to work in Wales because being Breton speakers, they were able to converse with their Welsh speaking customers. In the 19th Century, Breton and Cornish fishermen used to exchange pleasntries mid-Channel (I have a source for that somewhere). The situation is a bit unclear because some forms of the revived Cornish language such as Unified Cornish and Common Cornish, are intended to allow speakers to understand medieval Cornish texts and so include strands of Old and Middle Cornish (a bit like learning a form of English that would allow you to read Chaucer and Shakespeare without reaching for a glossary). Whether these are easier for Welsh speakers to understand than Modern Cornish, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)