-The dictionary says THANK has a certain vowel sound; -Keven and Liza say nobody pronounces THANK the way the dictionary says (and they're right). CONCLUSION: Keven and Liza presented the evidence to debunk the dictionary: the CONSENSUS amongst natives speaker.
@@davesenglish The clips are just examples, but be honest: do you pronounce THANK, ANGER, ANXIETY and ANGLE with an /æ/ sound? Do you know any Americans who pronounce these words with an /æ/ sound? If your answer is NO I think we can establish that the dictionary is wrong.
@@wagnerjunior6524 Is your own perception about how those words are pronounced evidence at all? The point that Dave is trying to make is if you claim the dictionary is wrong, show some evidence. Publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, do a controlled study. On the other hand, countless other TH-camrs have shown where Kevin and Liza randomly claim that the dictionary is wrong, like with the word "clothes," and they get debunked. By your logic, those same videos debunking Kevin and Liza's claims that the dictionary is wrong should also be evidence that Kevin and Liza are wrong.
@@wagnerjunior6524 Yes, you may observe different pronunciations in daily life, but that's not the point. Other people can and often do observe the pronunciation of the dictionary also being used. That also makes the claims of the dictionary being wrong as also wrong. Essentially, one person's own perception or observation is as valid as another, and cherry-picking a few clips here and there doesn't make their point valid. Kevin and Liza often leave out clips that have pronunciations or grammar constructions that are different from their claims. The problem is that Kevin and Liza are blatently making such claims without doing any controlled studies. An observation that you see in the street is essentially as good as perception if it's not put into data. So when Kevin and Liza claimed that the dictionary is wrong or that the word continue is never pronounced as /kən-tenj'u:/, who gives them the ultimate authority to claim that it's wrong and that their pronunciation is correct? The other problem when they tend to make broad statements that the dictionary or someone is wrong is that they almost never account for regional accents. This happens most often when they target native speakers, like they did with continue, forgetting that a large portion of the country-the south, the lower midwest and the Central Valley in California, have the pin-pen merger. In other words, there's no consensus on many of the words that they say they're the only ones who are right or that the dictionary is wrong, and they're trying to be the authority figure over that pronunciation.
Antonio de Nebrija was the author of the first Castilian grammar (the Gramática castellana), published on August 18, 1492 (two months before the arrival of Christopher Columbus' fleet to America), and of the first Latin-Spanish Dictionary that same year and from his Spanish-Latin Vocabulary around 1494. This work is the first of a neo-Latin language: it was thirty-seven years ahead of Trissino's first Italian grammar, fifty-eight of Meigret's first French grammar, and forty-four of Oliveira's first Portuguese one. The first English grammar, Pamphlet for Grammar by William Bullokar, written with the seeming goal of demonstrating that English was quite as rule-bound as Latin, was published in 1586.
"English Grammar in Use" by Raymond Murphy does NOT say that there is a set fixed group of modal verbs. It only aims at outlining the grammar for a series of verbs that share similarities (in terms of usage and form) under the umbrella of modal verbs because (obviously) it makes it more accessible to its target audience, i.e. students. People have benefitted from that book enormously over the years (myself included), and most students are not really concerned about linguistic squabbles over whether or not certain words should fit into this or that obscure category. It would be wise to stress out the immense value of that resource.
By categorizing them as "Modal Verb" (Page iii in "English Grammar in Use", they are setting a fixed group, stating those are modal verbs. And yes, it makes it more accessible to the reader, but is still a labeling nonetheless. The problem is that by these rigid definitions, students often misuse modality. So many of my students use "must", assuming that it is the only modal verb that can be use for an obligation. And because "have to" and "need to" also indicate obligation, students don't use them because they think "must" is the only option. And thank you for mentioning Murphy, because this shows the difference. In the Cambridge Dictionary, it does not have "have to" as a modal verb, but Murphy clearly puts "have to" in the modal verb section of his book...a book published by Cambridge. So thank you for turning my attention to that, as that will help with an upcoming book I'm going to do about modal verbs.
@@davesenglish The reason I say it's not a fixed group is that, if you look at the same section in his Basic Grammar in Use, the list of modal verbs is smaller. This clearly indicates that his intention is not to create a comprehensive or restricted list of verbs. Each book includes the grammar the author considers suitable for particular levels - A1-A2 in the case of Basic Grammar (I believe), and B1-B2 in the case of English Grammar. Similarly, if I asked you to provide a list of synonyms for the word 'sad' and you left out words like 'woebegone' or 'forlorn,' I wouldn't necessarily think that you were telling me that the verbs you listed are the *only* synonyms that exist, or that there aren't different nuances to each of the words. Perhaps you just listed the ones you found most useful in order to help me.
Thank you for your video! I am very much waiting for the new ones. Are you fine? Is your health okay? Just worry since you didn't upload videos for some time.
So, in English they don't have an "English Royal Academy" or something like that, just like the do in Spanish, that's to say, in Spanish they have the "Real Academia Española" translated into English "Spanish Royal Academy" that regulates all about Spelling, Phonetics, Grammar, etc etc... of the Spanish language.
"English Journey with Eni" made a video featuring you, in which you criticise Kevin-and-Lisa for assuming their "clothes" are better than the clothes from dictionaries. i couldn't find that videdo on your channel anymore. Dictionaries are not sacred: the simplest way a dictionary can become imprecise is obsoletion. Also, Cambridge and Collins online dictionaries seem to be slightly prescriptive -- their pronunciations are more logical than what speakers say (e.g. "e" is rendered as [e] instead of a shwa or [i]), and borrowed words even have non-english phonemes, e.g. "croissant" is pronounsed as kwɑːˈsɑ̃ː by Cambridge Dictionary
Dictionaries are right. Let me prove my point. Creators of any dictionary are faced with two mutually exclusive objectives - a. represent in writing as precise as possible pronunciation of a given word (for most of the people most of the time in standard dialect); b. the representation must be as simple as possible - easy to read, easy to use, as little symbols as possible, using only bare minimum of symbols. A leaner being encountered with the transcription looking more like a quantum physics formula very unlikly will be able to use a dictionary to their benefit. More than that it will scare away, discourage to hold a dictionary in their hands ever again. That`s why only essentials of pronunciation we can see in dictionaries guiding us in the right direction with minimum losses along the way. That`s why we can`t see phonetic symbols representing aspiration, velarization, nasalization, glottolization, (often) rhotisization, unreleased consonants and so on and so on. Nor allophones, only phonemes are used. This simplification not only adviseble but a must when it comes to teaching a language. No one ever said that their transcription perfect or represents `real` pronunciation. There can`t simply exist ideal textual representation of sounds of speach in their neverending everhappening variation, only more or less close approximation. So transcription can be broad, narower, more narrower and more narrower still - effectively ever. So transcription in a dictionary is just another way to spell words if more accurate and helpful in studying. Can we say that english orthography is wrong? Should we use different script for example. I think it`s doing its job perfectly fine. Yes of course in order to read one must learn how to read. But ever after that it`s an easy ride. As for `bank` either transcription [bæŋk] or [beŋk] is OK as long as it`s not [baiŋk], [boiŋk] etc, for `sing` - [siŋ], [sɪŋ], [siːŋ] as long as it`s not [seŋ], [saiŋ] and so forth. This is the position of neutralization when no change in meaning occurs not like in pairs Ben-ban, seen, sin. Therefore you can use whichever variant. In each case you`ll as a forein student will be a little off in comparison to a native speaker. Enter life itself in the form of in addition to everything-else teachers for example whose job is to rectify far less than perfect pronunciation of esl learners - and not to discourage them from reading books which if used correctly of tremendous benefit. As far as I know it`s very little problem with long-short vowels in words like bank, sing. At the very least if occurs easily rectifiable. More problems for example with aspirated stops, flap T, dental fricatives etc. Moreover most of the time even native speakers, even phoneticians won`t be able definitively tell what sounds americans say before ŋ in bank, sing æ, ɛ, e - iː, ɪ because they merge and work as one functional unit although it`s true that most of the time its in the upper region. In BrE they also raised (due to coarticulation) but not so high as in AmE maybe. The bottom line is dictionaries right -- in their own right. Every and each of them. Only one has to use them right. Which system of representing pronunciation is better is debatable. Sometimes it`s just matter of habit and preference. If there are mistakes in the text it`s just proves that I`m a human. Bye
My native language is German and it also used to be heavily regulated with the most widely known and accepted authority being a dictionary called "Der Duden". More recently however organizations and corporations have started using so-called "gendered language" (doesn't really exist in English) even though it's never been affirmed by any of the traditional German language institutions. I've always preferred the more descriptive approach that seems to be the tradition in English speaking countries.
The gendered language in German is not able to establish itself, as it fails with various grammar rules. Its just what a couple of loud screaming activists have come up with, but the majority of the public don't give a damn about. This phenomenon does exist in English speaking countries as well, with people inventing a whole list of new pronouns that don't serve any purpose, while the vast majority of English speakers don't give a damn about it and couldn't care less to adopt that way of speaking.
People should stop kowtowing to these tiny groups of experts who are often very polticallyl motivated. It is no secret that telling people to write dass instead of daß was a poltically motivated choice, one aimed at making German more modern and to distance itself further from the past.
Agreed. Dont forget the power of the media. Their influence is great and I think without them Germans would still be saying "hat Sinn" instead of "macht Sinn" and "fesstellen" instead of "realiseren" but when the media speak in a certain way, the people follow, without even noticing.
In Spanish we have a single institution for 400 million speakers, "The Royal Academy of Spanish Language", with experts in different disciplines: history, sociology, epistemology, semantics, semiotics, etc. These experts have several academic degrees from the most diverse universities around the world, many of them master several languages, including native ones. These academics come from all over the Spanish-speaking world: Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Chile, Spain, etc. They simply solved this dilemma by indicating that the reason why genres exist in the Spanish language is merely phonetic. The English language once had genres but these disappeared in the evolution of the language.
It reminded me of the times when so many people began using 'literally' in place of 'figuratively.' The number of people doing so became so large that now, ironically, the incorrect use of 'literally' has taken on the meaning of 'figuratively' 😅
@@davesenglish Exactly! That's what I was talking about. Actually, there's *literally* an article about this on Merriam Webster website: grammar/misuse-of-literally I cannot publish the full web link cause it will be automatically deleted
@@davesenglish Just in case , the article starts : " Did we change the definition of 'literally'? Literally every modern dictionary includes this definition Is it ever okay to use literally to mean "figuratively"?"
@@davesenglish I've seen many Americans say it, Rachel's English has a video about it. Just because you don't know this expression doesn't mean it doesn't exist in American English. Bro, is it that hard for you to admit a mistake?
i can.t see your response to kevin and lisa video did you delete it i was really wondering how you would response. i wish i had watched it as soon as it popped up on my screen. it turkish there is a proverb which goes like keskin sirke küpüne zarar 🤭
You lied at 14:48. Keven and Lisa DO present evidence to debunk the dictionary, their evidence is the CONSENSUS amongst native English speakers pronunciation-wise, you said the consensus is a valid evidence to back up your claims in this very same video, don't you remember the automobile/mug example you gave, sir?
Where do they present that "consensus"? And what is deemed "consensus"? I say that consensus is when it is universally agreed upon. They never provide that. A few movie clips doesn't account for consensus.
I do not find any error in what Mr. “English for every one” said, because he did not say that the dictionary is wrong in everything. He only said that the dictionary is wrong in this case, and you are exaggerating the matter as if it were a very big mistake. You are contradicting yourself when you pronounce the word “language” in the American way. Which is considered a violation of the dictionary. Why didn’t you pronounce the word “language” as the dictionary requires? Then you agree that the dictionary is wrong. I follow you and admire the approach you take to convey what you want to convey to us, and I do not want you to be merely contradictory.
QUESTIONS: Do you pronounce THANK, ANGER, ANXIETY and ANGLE with an /æ/ sound? Do you know any Americans who pronounce these words with an /æ/ sound? If your answer is NO then I think we can establish that the dictionary is wrong.
@@davesenglish Then we have a few possibilities here: 1- You have no idea what sound the /æ/ symbol represents, because in American English these words have the /eɪ/ sound before the nasal sound. I recommend that you watch Rachel's English's video about that; 2 - You are an exception, one of the very few Americans that pronounce these words with an /æ/. I don't know the reason for that, maybe a speech deficiency or maybe you've been misled by the pronunciation symbols prescribed in the infallible dictionaries you worship; 3 - You actually do pronounce these words with a diphthong, like all the other Americans, but you're just too embarrassed to admit that you made a mistake, as we can see you're not humble enough to admit your mistakes, that's why you delete your videos. Which one of the possibilities above best describes the case here, Sir?
@@davesenglish Then you're telling me you open your mouth to pronounce this word just like you do to pronounce the word CAT, which is clearly wrong, so you clearly don't know which sound this symbol represents. I highly recommend that you watch some of the Rachel's English videos, she has some videos explaining that these words are actually pronounced with a diphthong in American English.
Dictionaries are wrong because /æ/ before /ŋ/ changes into /e/ or /eɪ/. Dictionaries don't tell you that. No American on this planet pronounces the word 'thanks' as /θæŋks/. Americans say /θeŋks/ or /θeɪŋks/. You can literally go to YouGlish and you won't find a single American pronouncing it that way. The Brits on the other hand will say it that way.
In what is considered to be General American æ before ŋ can be [ɛː~eɪ~æ], [ɛː~ɛj, [eː~ej], [ɛə] ,see /æ/ raising article in en.wikipedia.org/wiki//%C3%A6/_raising. In dictionaries to encompass all major varieties of a given language are used so called diaphonemes, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaphoneme. More on the IPA representation of English go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English. So maybe - only maybe - dictionaries are right and someone just can`t interpret them the right way, huh? Teachers` job is to clarify some vague aspects of transcription like this - not to discredit books discouraging student from using them.
@@mybad2603 Transcriptions are just respelling. They can be .more detailed or they can be less detailed. They cannot be wrong. As simple as that You by the way, don't read them books, go to daddy Kev and mom Lisa and eat their fodder. That's soo right
Oxford, Webster etc are neither institutions nor organizations (you seem to use the two words interchangeably here) although they like to regard themselves in that way. They are dictionaries and should be regarded as such. By the way, there is not 100% consensus that your mug is a "cup" haha. The language is not entirely unregulated. The names of places are regulated by poltiical decision makers. this is particularly true of place names. Calling Kiev Kiyv for example is a polticallly motivated decision because Kiyv is the Ukrainian spelling and pronunciation and replacing the Russian withe Ukrainian name is a political decision. From Mongoloid to Downs Syndrome to Down Syndrome are similarly moral-poltiical choices made my a minority of influencers. Agreed about right and wrong. What do you think of the London "you was" which could arguably be a reflection of the original Germanic "du warst"??
1. They are institutions. They are universities. You can't get more institutionalized than a university. 2. As far as cup, there is consensus. If I said that is a "cup", people wouldn't disagree, but they also would provide alternatives. There's a different. 3. Regarding Kyiv, it's still unregulated. There isn't an English-language governing body that had determined whether we say "Kyiv" or "Kiev". Influences regarding policy doesn't influence the regulation of the language. There is no "English Academy" telling us whether it is Kyiv or Kiev. This is why I think it's better to call English a self-regulating language than totally unregulated, because cultural norms can dictate what is or isn't correct. As far as "you was", I would have to look more into that.
Thank you for answering 1) I didn't make myself clear. I mean that Oxford Univeristy Press, (not Oxford Universiy) is not an institution but all right it is behoven to the Univeristy of Oxford and in that sense is part of an institution, I suppose. I think it would have been helpful to stress that the University Press is owened by an institution, which is the university. Webster's is presumably an independent publishing house (?) 2) I think people sometime use the word "cup" as a lazy way of saying "mug" in the same way as people, in England anyway, say "book" as a lazy way of saying "magazine" or "hawk" as a lazy way of saying "buzzard" or "kite". They know how to be more precise but usually arent bothered. The difference between a hawk and a buzzard or between a mug and cup is nevertheless clear as clear as the difference between say a mouse and a rat, and the differences are exact and techical. A cup is made to accompany a saucer and a mug isnt but in everyday life people often cannot be bothered to make the distinction. It is the same with the United States and plain "America". People say America when they mean USA. However, technically America is a continent and the United States of America is a nation. 3) You write " There isn't an English-language governing body that had determined whether we say "Kyiv"". Indeed there is not officially, but there is most certainly a poltiical and media power amounting effectively to something like a governing body which has determined so, more obviously still, successfully changing "the Ukraine" overnight to "Ukraine". Hardly anyone noticed and hardly anyone knows that is because Ukrainian nationalists believe that the use of the definite article suggests that the Ukraine oh sorry sorry Ukraine, is not a sovereign nation. Many language changes are consciously made by influential persons, a very small group of persons, with the power to alter the way people speak. It may be fine to change Bombay to Mumbai, since Bombay is/was associated with imperialism; however the change to Mumbai was a poltiical Hindoo nationalist act and NOT "neutralö" or "organioc" as many people like to pretend or imagine.
QUESTIONS: Why did you say Americans don't say SPILL THE TEA when a lot of Americans actually say it???? Is it my impression or did you delete the SPILL THE TEA video????
@@davesenglish Why did you delete it? Say it here, please. You said SPILL THE TEA is not American English, you were wrong. Is it that hard for you to admit you made a mistake?
believe me - english is way easier for everyone than french, starting from grammar and ending with vocabulary. the only people for whom french is much easier is those who have as a mother tongue russian since russian n french r extremely similar in general (im the one)
@@Иван-п8з9сНесомненно русский имеет много слов из французского языка, но говорить, что он лёгок только для русскоговорящих , это довольное сильное заявление, учитывая, насколько много языков , которые значительно более ближе к французскому чем русский
@@zainglishI see you're obsessing over your "basically" non-existent follower count, not to mention the extreme low viewership 😂. And Even in the hypothetical scenario that you had a decent following (which clearly you have none), It's not about the numbers, but it's about the impact. Most of us are not wasting time creating content nobody cares 🤭
@@Cass23kkkk I have millions of views and thousands of comments, also 130+ thousand followers. So, go to sleep. No, I will not give you a link to my channel. Because you will come to sh*t there, too.
Oh, come on. What a lengthy speach about well-known things. We, language learners, want you, teachers, teach us the modern living English language you speak with your friends, relatives, coworkers in everyday life now, in this time and place. And Kevin and Lisa give us exactly that. With dictionaries we can deal ourselves.
I personally consistently use Cambridge, Oxford and Longman dictionaries one after another. They’re all remarkable.
7:36 The underscored th represents the /ð/ sound.
I'm a huge fan of traditional ipa, I don't like respelling systems like this.
-The dictionary says THANK has a certain vowel sound;
-Keven and Liza say nobody pronounces THANK the way the dictionary says (and they're right).
CONCLUSION: Keven and Liza presented the evidence to debunk the dictionary: the CONSENSUS amongst natives speaker.
And that evidence? A few video clips? I haven't heard anyone on their channel agree with them. Oh, and I'm a native English speaker, numbnuts.
@@davesenglish The clips are just examples, but be honest: do you pronounce THANK, ANGER, ANXIETY and ANGLE with an /æ/ sound? Do you know any Americans who pronounce these words with an /æ/ sound?
If your answer is NO I think we can establish that the dictionary is wrong.
@@wagnerjunior6524 Is your own perception about how those words are pronounced evidence at all? The point that Dave is trying to make is if you claim the dictionary is wrong, show some evidence. Publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, do a controlled study. On the other hand, countless other TH-camrs have shown where Kevin and Liza randomly claim that the dictionary is wrong, like with the word "clothes," and they get debunked. By your logic, those same videos debunking Kevin and Liza's claims that the dictionary is wrong should also be evidence that Kevin and Liza are wrong.
@@rebelranger It's not my perception, it's something you objectively see with a spectrogram, would you happen to know what a spectrogram is?
@@wagnerjunior6524 Yes, you may observe different pronunciations in daily life, but that's not the point. Other people can and often do observe the pronunciation of the dictionary also being used. That also makes the claims of the dictionary being wrong as also wrong. Essentially, one person's own perception or observation is as valid as another, and cherry-picking a few clips here and there doesn't make their point valid. Kevin and Liza often leave out clips that have pronunciations or grammar constructions that are different from their claims.
The problem is that Kevin and Liza are blatently making such claims without doing any controlled studies. An observation that you see in the street is essentially as good as perception if it's not put into data. So when Kevin and Liza claimed that the dictionary is wrong or that the word continue is never pronounced as /kən-tenj'u:/, who gives them the ultimate authority to claim that it's wrong and that their pronunciation is correct?
The other problem when they tend to make broad statements that the dictionary or someone is wrong is that they almost never account for regional accents. This happens most often when they target native speakers, like they did with continue, forgetting that a large portion of the country-the south, the lower midwest and the Central Valley in California, have the pin-pen merger. In other words, there's no consensus on many of the words that they say they're the only ones who are right or that the dictionary is wrong, and they're trying to be the authority figure over that pronunciation.
Wow! That’s really intriguing! Great job! You’re a great teacher!
Antonio de Nebrija was the author of the first Castilian grammar (the Gramática castellana), published on August 18, 1492 (two months before the arrival of Christopher Columbus' fleet to America), and of the first Latin-Spanish Dictionary that same year and from his Spanish-Latin Vocabulary around 1494. This work is the first of a neo-Latin language: it was thirty-seven years ahead of Trissino's first Italian grammar, fifty-eight of Meigret's first French grammar, and forty-four of Oliveira's first Portuguese one. The first English grammar, Pamphlet for Grammar by William Bullokar, written with the seeming goal of demonstrating that English was quite as rule-bound as Latin, was published in 1586.
"English Grammar in Use" by Raymond Murphy does NOT say that there is a set fixed group of modal verbs. It only aims at outlining the grammar for a series of verbs that share similarities (in terms of usage and form) under the umbrella of modal verbs because (obviously) it makes it more accessible to its target audience, i.e. students. People have benefitted from that book enormously over the years (myself included), and most students are not really concerned about linguistic squabbles over whether or not certain words should fit into this or that obscure category. It would be wise to stress out the immense value of that resource.
By categorizing them as "Modal Verb" (Page iii in "English Grammar in Use", they are setting a fixed group, stating those are modal verbs. And yes, it makes it more accessible to the reader, but is still a labeling nonetheless.
The problem is that by these rigid definitions, students often misuse modality. So many of my students use "must", assuming that it is the only modal verb that can be use for an obligation. And because "have to" and "need to" also indicate obligation, students don't use them because they think "must" is the only option.
And thank you for mentioning Murphy, because this shows the difference. In the Cambridge Dictionary, it does not have "have to" as a modal verb, but Murphy clearly puts "have to" in the modal verb section of his book...a book published by Cambridge. So thank you for turning my attention to that, as that will help with an upcoming book I'm going to do about modal verbs.
@@davesenglish The reason I say it's not a fixed group is that, if you look at the same section in his Basic Grammar in Use, the list of modal verbs is smaller. This clearly indicates that his intention is not to create a comprehensive or restricted list of verbs. Each book includes the grammar the author considers suitable for particular levels - A1-A2 in the case of Basic Grammar (I believe), and B1-B2 in the case of English Grammar. Similarly, if I asked you to provide a list of synonyms for the word 'sad' and you left out words like 'woebegone' or 'forlorn,' I wouldn't necessarily think that you were telling me that the verbs you listed are the *only* synonyms that exist, or that there aren't different nuances to each of the words. Perhaps you just listed the ones you found most useful in order to help me.
Wow, this is the best video you have ever done. great for you
I still love English for everyone.
Thank you for your video! I am very much waiting for the new ones. Are you fine? Is your health okay? Just worry since you didn't upload videos for some time.
So, in English they don't have an "English Royal Academy" or something like that, just like the do in Spanish, that's to say, in Spanish they have the "Real Academia Española" translated into English "Spanish Royal Academy" that regulates all about Spelling, Phonetics, Grammar, etc etc... of the Spanish language.
There's a huge book from Cambridge. I don't remember its name, it was a big effort to collect English Grammar (2010)
"English Journey with Eni" made a video featuring you, in which you criticise Kevin-and-Lisa for assuming their "clothes" are better than the clothes from dictionaries. i couldn't find that videdo on your channel anymore. Dictionaries are not sacred: the simplest way a dictionary can become imprecise is obsoletion. Also, Cambridge and Collins online dictionaries seem to be slightly prescriptive -- their pronunciations are more logical than what speakers say (e.g. "e" is rendered as [e] instead of a shwa or [i]), and borrowed words even have non-english phonemes, e.g. "croissant" is pronounsed as kwɑːˈsɑ̃ː by Cambridge Dictionary
Dictionaries are right. Let me prove my point. Creators of any dictionary are faced with two mutually exclusive objectives - a. represent in writing as precise as possible pronunciation of a given word (for most of the people most of the time in standard dialect); b. the representation must be as simple as possible - easy to read, easy to use, as little symbols as possible, using only bare minimum of symbols. A leaner being encountered with the transcription looking more like a quantum physics formula very unlikly will be able to use a dictionary to their benefit. More than that it will scare away, discourage to hold a dictionary in their hands ever again. That`s why only essentials of pronunciation we can see in dictionaries guiding us in the right direction with minimum losses along the way. That`s why we can`t see phonetic symbols representing aspiration, velarization, nasalization, glottolization, (often) rhotisization, unreleased consonants and so on and so on. Nor allophones, only phonemes are used. This simplification not only adviseble but a must when it comes to teaching a language. No one ever said that their transcription perfect or represents `real` pronunciation. There can`t simply exist ideal textual representation of sounds of speach in their neverending everhappening variation, only more or less close approximation. So transcription can be broad, narower, more narrower and more narrower still - effectively ever. So transcription in a dictionary is just another way to spell words if more accurate and helpful in studying. Can we say that english orthography is wrong? Should we use different script for example. I think it`s doing its job perfectly fine. Yes of course in order to read one must learn how to read. But ever after that it`s an easy ride. As for `bank` either transcription [bæŋk] or [beŋk] is OK as long as it`s not [baiŋk], [boiŋk] etc, for `sing` - [siŋ], [sɪŋ], [siːŋ] as long as it`s not [seŋ], [saiŋ] and so forth. This is the position of neutralization when no change in meaning occurs not like in pairs Ben-ban, seen, sin. Therefore you can use whichever variant. In each case you`ll as a forein student will be a little off in comparison to a native speaker. Enter life itself in the form of in addition to everything-else teachers for example whose job is to rectify far less than perfect pronunciation of esl learners - and not to discourage them from reading books which if used correctly of tremendous benefit. As far as I know it`s very little problem with long-short vowels in words like bank, sing. At the very least if occurs easily rectifiable. More problems for example with aspirated stops, flap T, dental fricatives etc. Moreover most of the time even native speakers, even phoneticians won`t be able definitively tell what sounds americans say before ŋ in bank, sing æ, ɛ, e - iː, ɪ because they merge and work as one functional unit although it`s true that most of the time its in the upper region. In BrE they also raised (due to coarticulation) but not so high as in AmE maybe.
The bottom line is dictionaries right -- in their own right. Every and each of them. Only one has to use them right. Which system of representing pronunciation is better is debatable. Sometimes it`s just matter of habit and preference.
If there are mistakes in the text it`s just proves that I`m a human. Bye
My native language is German and it also used to be heavily regulated with the most widely known and accepted authority being a dictionary called "Der Duden". More recently however organizations and corporations have started using so-called "gendered language" (doesn't really exist in English) even though it's never been affirmed by any of the traditional German language institutions. I've always preferred the more descriptive approach that seems to be the tradition in English speaking countries.
The gendered language in German is not able to establish itself, as it fails with various grammar rules. Its just what a couple of loud screaming activists have come up with, but the majority of the public don't give a damn about. This phenomenon does exist in English speaking countries as well, with people inventing a whole list of new pronouns that don't serve any purpose, while the vast majority of English speakers don't give a damn about it and couldn't care less to adopt that way of speaking.
People should stop kowtowing to these tiny groups of experts who are often very polticallyl motivated. It is no secret that telling people to write dass instead of daß was a poltically motivated choice, one aimed at making German more modern and to distance itself further from the past.
Agreed. Dont forget the power of the media. Their influence is great and I think without them Germans would still be saying "hat Sinn" instead of "macht Sinn" and "fesstellen" instead of "realiseren" but when the media speak in a certain way, the people follow, without even noticing.
In Spanish we have a single institution for 400 million speakers, "The Royal Academy of Spanish Language", with experts in different disciplines: history, sociology, epistemology, semantics, semiotics, etc. These experts have several academic degrees from the most diverse universities around the world, many of them master several languages, including native ones. These academics come from all over the Spanish-speaking world: Mexico, Argentina, Peru, Chile, Spain, etc. They simply solved this dilemma by indicating that the reason why genres exist in the Spanish language is merely phonetic. The English language once had genres but these disappeared in the evolution of the language.
It reminded me of the times when so many people began using 'literally' in place of 'figuratively.' The number of people doing so became so large that now, ironically, the incorrect use of 'literally' has taken on the meaning of 'figuratively' 😅
However, if you look at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it says that you can use "literally" in effect.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
@@davesenglish Exactly! That's what I was talking about. Actually, there's *literally* an article about this on Merriam Webster website:
grammar/misuse-of-literally
I cannot publish the full web link cause it will be automatically deleted
@@davesenglish Just in case , the article starts :
" Did we change the definition of 'literally'?
Literally every modern dictionary includes this definition
Is it ever okay to use literally to mean "figuratively"?"
'Spill the tea' is a common expression, why you say it doesn´t exist, aren´t you American?
Yes, I'm American, hence the reason why we don't say it as much here.
@@davesenglish I've seen many Americans say it, Rachel's English has a video about it.
Just because you don't know this expression doesn't mean it doesn't exist in American English.
Bro, is it that hard for you to admit a mistake?
i can.t see your response to kevin and lisa video did you delete it i was really wondering how you would response. i wish i had watched it as soon as it popped up on my screen. it turkish there is a proverb which goes like keskin sirke küpüne zarar 🤭
Hey Mr David, hope you're good. I wish you'd make a vid about accept mistakes, such as you once made it
You lied at 14:48.
Keven and Lisa DO present evidence to debunk the dictionary, their evidence is the CONSENSUS amongst native English speakers pronunciation-wise, you said the consensus is a valid evidence to back up your claims in this very same video, don't you remember the automobile/mug example you gave, sir?
Where do they present that "consensus"? And what is deemed "consensus"? I say that consensus is when it is universally agreed upon. They never provide that. A few movie clips doesn't account for consensus.
@@davesenglish The pronunciations they present are universally agreed upon, that's a consensus, just like the mug example.
This is pretty too harsh to call someone a liar.. What consesus?
@@wagnerjunior6524 what about /ˈɡruː.ə.lɪŋ/? They pronounced it /ˈɡru.lɪŋ/ which is totally incorrect.. Americans don't prnounce it like that!
@@OpportunitiesNS Consensus amongst native speakers.
I do not find any error in what Mr. “English for every one” said, because he did not say that the dictionary is wrong in everything. He only said that the dictionary is wrong in this case, and you are exaggerating the matter as if it were a very big mistake. You are contradicting yourself when you pronounce the word “language” in the American way. Which is considered a violation of the dictionary. Why didn’t you pronounce the word “language” as the dictionary requires? Then you agree that the dictionary is wrong. I follow you and admire the approach you take to convey what you want to convey to us, and I do not want you to be merely contradictory.
Merry Christmas Eve!
MW does differentiate between voiced and unvoiced TH
Preposterous! At least a few people from 1000 would agree with your statement about automobile out of jest : ) Thank you for your video!
QUESTIONS: Do you pronounce THANK, ANGER, ANXIETY and ANGLE with an /æ/ sound? Do you know any Americans who pronounce these words with an /æ/ sound?
If your answer is NO then I think we can establish that the dictionary is wrong.
I pronounce them all with /æ/, and it would sound weird if I didn't.
What sound do you think we should use?
@@davesenglish Then we have a few possibilities here:
1- You have no idea what sound the /æ/ symbol represents, because in American English these words have the /eɪ/ sound before the nasal sound. I recommend that you watch Rachel's English's video about that;
2 - You are an exception, one of the very few Americans that pronounce these words with an /æ/. I don't know the reason for that, maybe a speech deficiency or maybe you've been misled by the pronunciation symbols prescribed in the infallible dictionaries you worship;
3 - You actually do pronounce these words with a diphthong, like all the other Americans, but you're just too embarrassed to admit that you made a mistake, as we can see you're not humble enough to admit your mistakes, that's why you delete your videos.
Which one of the possibilities above best describes the case here, Sir?
@@davesenglish Then you're telling me you open your mouth to pronounce this word just like you do to pronounce the word CAT, which is clearly wrong, so you clearly don't know which sound this symbol represents. I highly recommend that you watch some of the Rachel's English videos, she has some videos explaining that these words are actually pronounced with a diphthong in American English.
I couldn't agree more . Gr8 video
Sometimes yes.
Dictionaries are wrong because /æ/ before /ŋ/ changes into /e/ or /eɪ/. Dictionaries don't tell you that.
No American on this planet pronounces the word 'thanks' as /θæŋks/. Americans say /θeŋks/ or /θeɪŋks/. You can literally go to YouGlish and you won't find a single American pronouncing it that way. The Brits on the other hand will say it that way.
That's a problem in an of itself, which is that it's hard to have an "English Dictionary".
In what is considered to be General American æ before ŋ can be [ɛː~eɪ~æ], [ɛː~ɛj, [eː~ej], [ɛə] ,see /æ/ raising article in en.wikipedia.org/wiki//%C3%A6/_raising. In dictionaries to encompass all major varieties of a given language are used so called diaphonemes, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaphoneme. More on the IPA representation of English go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/English.
So maybe - only maybe - dictionaries are right and someone just can`t interpret them the right way, huh?
Teachers` job is to clarify some vague aspects of transcription like this - not to discredit books discouraging student from using them.
@@АндрейКузьменко-ю6н You're just repeating what I said, so yes, dictionaries are wrong. Thank you for your confirmation.
@@mybad2603 Transcriptions are just respelling. They can be .more detailed or they can be less detailed. They cannot be wrong. As simple as that
You by the way, don't read them books, go to daddy Kev and mom Lisa and eat their fodder. That's soo right
If Keven & Liza say that are wrong. Then are wrong :p.
Good
😢
Oxford, Webster etc are neither institutions nor organizations (you seem to use the two words interchangeably here) although they like to regard themselves in that way. They are dictionaries and should be regarded as such. By the way, there is not 100% consensus that your mug is a "cup" haha.
The language is not entirely unregulated. The names of places are regulated by poltiical decision makers. this is particularly true of place names. Calling Kiev Kiyv for example is a polticallly motivated decision because Kiyv is the Ukrainian spelling and pronunciation and replacing the Russian withe Ukrainian name is a political decision. From Mongoloid to Downs Syndrome to Down Syndrome are similarly moral-poltiical choices made my a minority of influencers.
Agreed about right and wrong. What do you think of the London "you was" which could arguably be a reflection of the original Germanic "du warst"??
1. They are institutions. They are universities. You can't get more institutionalized than a university.
2. As far as cup, there is consensus. If I said that is a "cup", people wouldn't disagree, but they also would provide alternatives. There's a different.
3. Regarding Kyiv, it's still unregulated. There isn't an English-language governing body that had determined whether we say "Kyiv" or "Kiev". Influences regarding policy doesn't influence the regulation of the language. There is no "English Academy" telling us whether it is Kyiv or Kiev. This is why I think it's better to call English a self-regulating language than totally unregulated, because cultural norms can dictate what is or isn't correct.
As far as "you was", I would have to look more into that.
Thank you for answering
1) I didn't make myself clear. I mean that Oxford Univeristy Press, (not Oxford Universiy) is not an institution but all right it is behoven to the Univeristy of Oxford and in that sense is part of an institution, I suppose. I think it would have been helpful to stress that the University Press is owened by an institution, which is the university. Webster's is presumably an independent publishing house (?)
2) I think people sometime use the word "cup" as a lazy way of saying "mug" in the same way as people, in England anyway, say "book" as a lazy way of saying "magazine" or "hawk" as a lazy way of saying "buzzard" or "kite". They know how to be more precise but usually arent bothered. The difference between a hawk and a buzzard or between a mug and cup is nevertheless clear as clear as the difference between say a mouse and a rat, and the differences are exact and techical. A cup is made to accompany a saucer and a mug isnt but in everyday life people often cannot be bothered to make the distinction. It is the same with the United States and plain "America". People say America when they mean USA. However, technically America is a continent and the United States of America is a nation.
3) You write " There isn't an English-language governing body that had determined whether we say "Kyiv"". Indeed there is not officially, but there is most certainly a poltiical and media power amounting effectively to something like a governing body which has determined so, more obviously still, successfully changing "the Ukraine" overnight to "Ukraine". Hardly anyone noticed and hardly anyone knows that is because Ukrainian nationalists believe that the use of the definite article suggests that the Ukraine oh sorry sorry Ukraine, is not a sovereign nation. Many language changes are consciously made by influential persons, a very small group of persons, with the power to alter the way people speak. It may be fine to change Bombay to Mumbai, since Bombay is/was associated with imperialism; however the change to Mumbai was a poltiical Hindoo nationalist act and NOT "neutralö" or "organioc" as many people like to pretend or imagine.
QUESTIONS: Why did you say Americans don't say SPILL THE TEA when a lot of Americans actually say it???? Is it my impression or did you delete the SPILL THE TEA video????
I mentioned why I deleted it in my message on my website.
Honestly, it is rarely used here. Sorry to burst you bubble.
@@davesenglish Why did you delete it? Say it here, please.
You said SPILL THE TEA is not American English, you were wrong.
Is it that hard for you to admit you made a mistake?
What a pity that this messy English is a lingua franca... I'd like French or Italian to be a global language...
believe me - english is way easier for everyone than french, starting from grammar and ending with vocabulary. the only people for whom french is much easier is those who have as a mother tongue russian since russian n french r extremely similar in general (im the one)
@@Иван-п8з9сНесомненно русский имеет много слов из французского языка, но говорить, что он лёгок только для русскоговорящих , это довольное сильное заявление, учитывая, насколько много языков , которые значительно более ближе к французскому чем русский
U r envious cause Kevin anda Lisa have much more followers than u
Nope.
What do you know about followers? You have none.
@@zainglish
"You have to be the thing to talk about the thing" nice to revive logical fallacies that date back to 1215 BC.
@@zainglishI see you're obsessing over your "basically" non-existent follower count, not to mention the extreme low viewership 😂. And Even in the hypothetical scenario that you had a decent following (which clearly you have none), It's not about the numbers, but it's about the impact. Most of us are not wasting time creating content nobody cares 🤭
@@Cass23kkkk I have millions of views and thousands of comments, also 130+ thousand followers. So, go to sleep.
No, I will not give you a link to my channel. Because you will come to sh*t there, too.
Oh, come on. What a lengthy speach about well-known things. We, language learners, want you, teachers, teach us the modern living English language you speak with your friends, relatives, coworkers in everyday life now, in this time and place. And Kevin and Lisa give us exactly that. With dictionaries we can deal ourselves.