0
Rachay Posted 14 years ago
Speech & Pronunciation
Pronunciation of 'of'
I was wondering if the pronunciation of the word 'of' is always the same /?v/. The cases that I'd like to have some clarification to are:
1. When preceding a voiced sound e.g. 'a pack of dogs'
2. When preceding a voiceless sound e.g. 'a pack of cards'
3. When preceding an /f/ sound e.g. 'a shoal of fish'
4. When preceding a /v/ sound e.g. 'a nest of vipers'
Is the pronunciation always /?v/ or is it perhaps /?f/ before voiceless sounds and /?/ before /f/ and /v/? Please help me out.
1. When preceding a voiced sound e.g. 'a pack of dogs'
2. When preceding a voiceless sound e.g. 'a pack of cards'
3. When preceding an /f/ sound e.g. 'a shoal of fish'
4. When preceding a /v/ sound e.g. 'a nest of vipers'
Is the pronunciation always /?v/ or is it perhaps /?f/ before voiceless sounds and /?/ before /f/ and /v/? Please help me out.
Top answer
The problem here in my oppinion is that a clear answer is almost impossible. Except in very artificial and overly emphasized types of speech, words tend to merge into each other, especially very common ones such as "of". In most types of English, I would say that a sort of "sonority principle" applies.
- The problem here in my oppinion is that a clear answer is almost impossible.
- Except in very artificial and overly emphasized types of speech, words tend to merge into each other, especially very common ones such as "of".
- In most types of English, I would say that a sort of "sonority principle" applies.
- g.
- gradually strengthening of vocal fold vibration rather than a clearly "voiced start").
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
The problem here in my oppinion is that a clear answer is almost impossible.
Except in very artificial and overly emphasized types of speech, words tend to merge into each other, especially very common ones such as "of".
In most types of English, I would say that a sort of "sonority principle" applies. The "f" in "of" basically does represent an /f/ sound in all cases, BUT when a
Except in very artificial and overly emphasized types of speech, words tend to merge into each other, especially very common ones such as "of".
In most types of English, I would say that a sort of "sonority principle" applies. The "f" in "of" basically does represent an /f/ sound in all cases, BUT when a
00
You also need to look at historical examples. For instance, 6 o' clock (of becoming o'); this elision of /f/ went lexical. In French, you see that frequently with functors.
could/should/might have > could/should/might of > coulda/shoulda/woulda/mighta.
Mispronunciations give lots of clues about what's going on.
could/should/might have > could/should/might of > coulda/shoulda/woulda/mighta.
Mispronunciations give lots of clues about what's going on.
00
rachayI was wondering if the pronunciation of the word 'of' is always the same /?v/.Yes. It always is "the same", at least in the variety of English that I speak. It never has /f/. However, the /v/ often seems to be dropped, leaving only /?/, especially in faster speech. I think people do put their mouths (lips, tongue, throat, etc.) in position for the /
00
Thank you all for the answers. I guess the lack of stress makes the word somewhat difficult hear clearly.
0
Related Questions