Reduced vowels usually occur in unstressed syllables

In English, a process called “vowel reduction”, may be very helpful for pronunciation of a vowel during a syllable without any effect or stress. The letter e, may correspond to the “disreduced” vowel sounds transcribed as or . Not All unstressed words are pronounced with reduced vowels. If the letter “E” in an unstressed syllable corresponds to a vowel (without any specific words) you can find it in a dictionary as a reference.

Reduced vowels and “precipitation”

The word “precipitation” has secondary stress on the second syllable, and primary stress on the second-to-last syllable, but no stress on the first syllable. Why most syllables end with a reduced vowel?

On the other hand, it’s not necessarily easy for a native English speaker to notice the distribution of reduced vowels because the pronuciation of reduced vowels is variable, and vowel reduction is rarely explicitly taught to native English speakers when they are learning how to read, because they tend to do it naturally.

What causes my ambiguity on my question “Declaration”?

One major area of variation that is fairly well-known is the presence or absence of what is called weak vowel merger. Basically, some speakers feel like they can’t tell the difference between an “h” sound and an “” sound in a syllable with reduced vowel, or they feel that all syllables with a reduced vowel have “”: these speakers are considered to have this merger. Is this common in American English? Even accents that don’t have a general merger may differ in which reduced vowel they use in particular words, or may allow either reduced vowel to be used in certain contexts. The

convention in most modern dictionaries is as follows: for

• accents that have two main reduced vowel sounds, one of them (the one that frequently corresponds to a written “e” or “i”) is represented with the same symbol as the unreduced vowel found in words like “bit” (in

• “” represents accents that have only one main reduction vowel sound, and not more than one vowel.

In the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) there is a letter located

on the head of

the upper left (separately from the usual English word “prspted-h”) letter. It is not noted that it is the same as the normal English letter (separately -l) on the upper left. This is used by the OED to signify a reduced vowel that can be realized either as // or as // in British

Where you can see the pronunciation without a reduced vowel in the first syllable for American English, and it has the vowel /i/ (this is the pronunciation with the “free” vowel that 1006a mentioned in a comment)? Pronunciations with a vowel similar to may exist, but as you have found, most dictionary-makers either don’t consider these pronunciations common enough or don’t consider them standard enough to include in their transcriptions.

Effects where the letter “E” can appear

in an unstressed syllable,./

occurs in short unstressed syllables, and // occurs in short unstressed words. /E/ does not occur. the word ends in an ” consonant”: the word tectonic, technique, sectarian, centripetal, mentality or tempestuous.]

In words with ex-, the first syllable is open, but the vowel

may be reduced anyway when it is unstressed. see the answers for How can I explain correctly a definition of “ex”?

I believe there is a similar variation in the pronunciation of the vowels in the prefix en-/em in some words where it is unstressed. E.g. The word embed is transcribed by Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary with //.

In word-final closed syllables, sometimes

In words like project, the unstressed vowel in the final syllable is not always reduced. Merriam-Webster indicates project can have // or // in the second syllable, and progress can have // or // (I don’t know why they transcribe the reduced vowels differently; maybe the identity of the preceding consonant is relevant).

Reduced vowels usually occur in unstressed syllables

In English, a process called “vowel reduction”, may be very helpful for pronunciation of a vowel during a syllable without any effect or stress. The letter e, may correspond to the “disreduced” vowel sounds transcribed as or . Not All unstressed words are pronounced with reduced vowels. If the letter “E” in an unstressed syllable corresponds to a vowel (without any specific words) you can find it in a dictionary as a reference.

Reduced vowels and “precipitation”

The word “precipitation” has secondary stress on the second syllable, and primary stress on the second-to-last syllable, but no stress on the first syllable. Why most syllables end with a reduced vowel?

On the other hand, it’s not necessarily easy for a native English speaker to notice the distribution of reduced vowels because the pronuciation of reduced vowels is variable, and vowel reduction is rarely explicitly taught to native English speakers when they are learning how to read, because they tend to do it naturally.

What causes my ambiguity on my question “Declaration”?

One major area of variation that is fairly well-known is the presence or absence of what is called weak vowel merger. Basically, some speakers feel like they can’t tell the difference between an “h” sound and an “” sound in a syllable with reduced vowel, or they feel that all syllables with a reduced vowel have “”: these speakers are considered to have this merger. Is this common in American English? Even accents that don’t have a general merger may differ in which reduced vowel they use in particular words, or may allow either reduced vowel to be used in certain contexts. The

convention in most modern dictionaries is as follows: for

• accents that have two main reduced vowel sounds, one of them (the one that frequently corresponds to a written “e” or “i”) is represented with the same symbol as the unreduced vowel found in words like “bit” (in

• “” represents accents that have only one main reduction vowel sound, and not more than one vowel.

In the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) there is a letter located

on the head of

the upper left (separately from the usual English word “prspted-h”) letter. It is not noted that it is the same as the normal English letter (separately -l) on the upper left. This is used by the OED to signify a reduced vowel that can be realized either as // or as // in British

Where you can see the pronunciation without a reduced vowel in the first syllable for American English, and it has the vowel /i/ (this is the pronunciation with the “free” vowel that 1006a mentioned in a comment)? Pronunciations with a vowel similar to may exist, but as you have found, most dictionary-makers either don’t consider these pronunciations common enough or don’t consider them standard enough to include in their transcriptions.

Effects where the letter “E” can appear

in an unstressed syllable,./

occurs in short unstressed syllables, and // occurs in short unstressed words. /E/ does not occur. the word ends in an ” consonant”: the word tectonic, technique, sectarian, centripetal, mentality or tempestuous.]

In words with ex-, the first syllable is open, but the vowel

may be reduced anyway when it is unstressed. see the answers for How can I explain correctly a definition of “ex”?

I believe there is a similar variation in the pronunciation of the vowels in the prefix en-/em in some words where it is unstressed. E.g. The word embed is transcribed by Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary with //.

In word-final closed syllables, sometimes

In words like project, the unstressed vowel in the final syllable is not always reduced. Merriam-Webster indicates project can have // or // in the second syllable, and progress can have // or // (I don’t know why they transcribe the reduced vowels differently; maybe the identity of the preceding consonant is relevant).

“Classical” “object” pronouns are used for the objects of verbs. Objective pronouns have various uses. One common use of objective pronouns is for objects of prepositions. “Like” is often analyzed as a preposition in this context.

Can like be used as a conjunction, but there is a “traditional” aversion in prescriptivist sources to the use of like as a conjunction, see e.g. Huffington Post article on the use of Like and like as a conjunction), e.g. Is ‘like’ a logical conjunction in an economics equation? What do you think about it? Is it kind of the opposite of the situation with than, where “traditional” prescriptivist position is that than should only be used as a conjunction and not as a preposition?

In this context, you don’t need “who?” The prepositional phrase “of whom” is used at the beginning of the relative clause. While one can

understand the actions of a lonely few – of whom some may have made good their escape… For the more

general question, the earlier question Who/whom + who relative clause may be relevant

When we used odaxelagniac, it definitely would be referred to as a noun. It

appears to me that, even though -ac is an adjective suffix, odaxelagniac would be a noun referring to someone with odaxelagnia.

Is the answer of the question in your title “What is the adjective form of odaxelagnia” good? If you live in Puerto Rico, what is the word for someone with odaxelagnia? I think a sentence like “He/she suffers from odaxelagnia” (with a predicate noun) would be more likely than either “He/she is odaxelagniac” or “He/she is odaxelagnistic” as a way of expressing the idea “He/she suffers from odaxelagnia”

How often do people say “He’s a maniac!” more than they say “He’s a maniac!”? What

this signifies is maniac is rare as a predicate adjective, but it does seem to occur fairly frequently in attributive position before a noun (e.g. -iac word in general)? “The maniac driver.” In this context, and it’s not clear that the word is actually an adjective, either noun or adjective is a word used before nouns in English.

I was able to find various examples of “odaxelagniac” being used as a noun and being used as an attributive word (I’m not sure whether a noun or adjective) before a noun.

Noun examples:

• When I’m an odaxelagniac: “I’m an odaxelagniac It is mean I

  get sexual arousal from biting” ( Whisper.Me. You bit

• like an odaxelagniac’s boyfriend!

  What are some good examples of “The Morning News: After Yesterday’s Fatal Crash, Renewed Questions about Ride the Ducks and The Aurora Bridge”, by Heidi Groover, Sep 25, 2015 at 9:00 am attributive examples: “Just like that teenager I yelled at last

week wasn’t

• an odaxelagniac creep” (” MistressMacha “, published Aug 3, 2011 on fanfiction

  You

• are right – you are. Yeah, Yeah, you’re right Why aren’t promicuous girls around here calling themselves odaxelagniac retifists? Is it a plauge?
  */sarcasm*

  (Posted June 15, 2008 by Hallucigenia in “Tila Tequila calls herself an Asexual!? My asexual vision and education network forum. I didn’t

find any examples of sentences where “odaxelagniac” was used as a predicative adjective (e.g. “Dear Axeland, in the Asexual Visibility and Education Network Forums) I saw no examples of sentences where “odaxelagniac” was used as a predicative adjective (e.g. “Dear Axeland” an adjective reference to “Odaxe No examples like “I am odaxelagniac”, “He/she is odaxelagniac”, “They/we/you are odaxelagniac”).

If “odaxelagnistic” seems like it would be a “correctly” formed adjective corresponding to odaxelagnia, but I don’t think it has been used yet, and I don’t know if it would be a good choice to refer to an individual with

odaxelagnia If for whatever reason you want a word related to odaxelagnia that is definitely an adjective and not a noun, I think the most likely formation would

The Oxford English Dictionary has an entry for the adjective algolagnistic, which it says is from ” algolagnia n.”. + -istic suffix, after German algolagnistisch (1892). This is defined as Of,

refering to, or characterized by algolagnia; sadomasochistic and “.

I can’t find a dictionary with entries for urolagnistic or coprolagnistic, Google searches turns up a few examples of these adjectives.

The example sentences in OED entry for algolagnistic indicate to me that adjectives of this type tend to be used to refer to behaviors or inclinations rather than to individuals:

• 1895 Chaddock tr. Therapeutic Suggestion ix. A. P. F. von Schrenck-Notzing Therapeutic Suggestion 175 There is always a tendency towards algolagnism and a lot of the boys are just beaten at school.
• 1908 E. Paul tr. I. Bloch ‘Sexional Life of Our Time’ xxi. 558 De Sade..collected almost all the facts..regarding algolagnistic phenomena in ethnology.
• 1914 med.: med. Standard Aug. 10, 2014. Algolagnistic manifestation are frequently the result of a lack of familiarity with the facts of science, abnormal educational or religious influences .

How do rightly formed adjectives like odaxelagnic and -ic perform?

Even if “algolagnic” has no OED entry, there a number of hits for it on Google Books, some of which correspond to adjective uses. How should you use “odaxelagnic” as an adjective?

Is osmosis intended to be symbiosis in this press release? And actually, the intended meaning of “in (perfect) osmosis” doesn’t seem to be exactly “in symbiosis”, but something like “in (perfect) communication to each other”.

Isn’t French usage of osmosis influenced by Portuguese usage?

As far as I can tell, the word osmosis belongs to the category of scientific vocabulary coined in the modern era from Greek roots, rather than being an old Ancient Greek word whose meaning was adapted to fit a scientific context (e.g. osmosis) Energy, from Ancient Greece; possibly from the root of Greek ).

OED indicates that the slightly older form osmose (which is the modern form used in French) was coined in 1854 by T. Graham (writing in English), based off of older words “endosmose” and “exosmose” that were used by Dutrochet (in French).

‘The French Tru00e9sor de la langue franu00e7aise informatisu00e9′ provides a definition for osmose that seems relevant.

2. Mu00e9lange intime fusion de deux u00e9lu00e9ments; interpu00e9nu00e9tration de deux phu00e9nomu00e8nes. C’est l’u00e9change des sentiments parallu00e8les, il y a communication inconsciente, osmose inaperu00e7ue (La Varende, Saint-Simon, 1955, p.249). He se fissent, bien qu’elles se fissent, concurrence sur le plan institutionnel, Il s’u00e9tablit une sorte d’osmose doctrinale qui allait donner naissance in Chine u00e0 une forme nouvelle du bouddhisme (Philos. , relig. , 1957, p. 395. :

• (2)(53-16): 2. dixmetres sous moi, l’eau invisible. Entre l’eau et la brume, pas de frontiu00e8re, la brume aussi lourde que l’eau, l’eau aussi irru00e9elle que la brume. Passage dans un autre monde, transition by une osmose ou00f9 toute forme ancienne est du00e9sagru00e9gu00e9e et dissoute. Abellio, Pacifiques, 1946, p.12.

Actually, the quotations in the TLFi don’t seem to be too far yet from the familiar English meaning of osmosis, but I think they can be seen to approach the unfamiliar meaning that you ask about in one question. I am wondering if they will cause a conflict with the definition of the English sentence from my point of view?

In the etymology and history section, the TLFi indicates that the second meaning of French osmose was in use by 1936:

u00c9tymol Is the question of teaching under all religion allowed? 1865 Biol. (Littru00e9 Robin); 3. 1936 F.P. 1760. From fig. How’s influence ru00e9ciproque? (Aragon, Beaux-Quart. (pp.378-n.348).

Uses of “in osmosis with” in English texts

It is an example of “in osmosis with” used in a translation, copyright 1965, of a French text by Antonin Artaud: But

I am struck still more by that unrelenting, that meteoric illusion which instills in us these finite, planned and predetermined architectures, these crystallized segments of the soul, as if they were a huge malleable sheet in osmosis with And surrealism is like a contraction of osmosis, a kind of communication turned inside-out.

(‘I really felt’, translated by Jean Decock; in Antonin Artaud Anthology, edited by Jack Hirshman –

Apparently, people use osmosis with in an essay in the 1930s or in an essay in the 1960s and 70s.) The Google Books snippet view brought up a few similar examples from the 1950s, -60s or -70s of “in osmosis with” being used in an article in the Italian/English translations So this usage has technically existed for a while in English texts, but I don’t see much evidence that it is or has been something that feels “right” to a majority of the English speakers who are familiar with the word osmosis, but not with the French word osmose.

Can I in any case put my weight on a chat by an Australian people if I don’t speak English? This shows that the usage is familiar to Australians, but I don’t think it establishes that it is common in Australia as a whole. If there is some details about using osmosis in Australian English, this one will be updated.

Why is your second example with whom is unremarkable; see this Language Log article: Whom loves you? In cases where a human-class

pronoun is associated with

subject function in a subordinate clause that is not the main clause in which it is preposed, usage is divided, but many prescriptive authorities regard whom as incorrect; they would recommend the person who the police thought ___ was responsible instead of the person whom the police thought ___ was responsible, as the relative pronoun is understood as the subject of was responsible (even though it is not the subject of the whole relative clause, the police thought_ Were the police told how much ___ was responsible for this incident and why? Would be highly undesirable by most usage authorities. I would recommend going all the way here.

So it goes against some people’s idea of “the rules”, but it is known that many people use “whom” in situations like this.

The first example is interesting in terms of the pronoun omission; it seems unusual now that you point it out. I’ve been told by others how pronoun omission works in sentences of this type.

Thanks to well-publicized remarks about the women he suggested weren’t attractive enough for him to have assaulted

You are of course right that normally we can’t omit a subjective relative pronoun: it would be ungrammatical to say*thanks

to well-publicized remarks about the women weren’t attractive enough for him to have assaulted

Surely there is no restriction against deleting subject pronoun?

What is the reason for the “”ea”” part of the correspondence for not only Great but also break and steak? Why were all the vowels used in Middle English turned into modern words?

It is written from the websites of Anthony Kroch: the development of the vowel in great and break is caused by the initial Cr-cluster (which would tend to phonetically lower the vowel) and the final voiceless stop (which would tend to shorten the vowel and thereby emphasize the effect of the lowering). Kroch also mentions a number of words that show “ear” = /r/ such as bear, pear, tear, wear. According to Kroch, pronunciations with /i/ actually existed for many of these words in the 18th century.

The Cr cluster and voiceless-coda is not a perfect explanation for the development of great and break; Kroch gives other examples of words that have /i/ in similar environments, such as breach and grease.

This specific explanation also doesn’t quite cover steak, which has no Cr cluster, although it does end in a voiceless consonant (something that wasn’t sufficient to shorten the vowels of words like beak or like ).

It seems likely that the preceding /r, in the words that have it, had something to do with the sound change, for a phonetic reasons that were mentioned above (there is also a similar irregular lack of GVS-raising for a back vowel after a Cr cluster: broad ). Is the split between ME // and present-day /i/ and /e/ (not to mention //, as in bread) affected by a number of factors that interacted in complicated ways?

Why is it that break, bear, swear, wear, tear (v) are all strong verbs that are conjugated similarly to one another in modern English (for example, all the past tense and past participle forms have o : broke(n), bore/born(e), swore/sworn, wore/worn, tore/torn ). I think that this is related to the similar development of vowels in the present-tense form of these verbs.

It seems like this has been an area of interest for a number of linguists who’ve studied the history of English—Kroch references Labov and Jespersen, so you may want to read some of their work if you’re interested in learning more.

At the beginning of a sentence, I found the word drain.I forget therefore, and I have read that it was a word that matched up with Drain. However, I could not find that word anymore. I was just a phonological sounding word at the beginning. So they just show the same phonological development. The Oxford English Dictionary says it comes from the Old English verb drahnian, and that “The historical spelling is drean, pronounced in some dialects /dren/, in others /drin/. ” This looks like it’s parallel to great ; however I don’t know the details so the pronunciation with /e/ might be due to something else (for example, I don’t know if the vowel might have been affected in some dialects by the following “h” in the ancestral form of this word)

A word like English doesn’t necessarily equal pronunciation. However, English can make a name. I know that many English words have some obscure etymological component of it, but I’ve also seen things that use such etymology, and I’ve used many other spelling in my slang. I’ve read other spellings, these are especially problematic.

The Old French origins of “o” pronounced as “u”

It seems that in Old French spelling, “o” and “ou” and “u” often were used interchangeably for the unstressed sounds that developed from Vulgar Latin *o:

Initial unaccented, free or checked, and free, then presumably were pronounced in Low Romance but they could be spelled as botellu > bodel (or > boudel) On the other hand a checked initial was spelled and pronounced : portare > >.

– A History of the French Language by Urban T. Holmes, Jr. and Alexander H. Schutz (p. 34).

Note: the quote uses an old convention for phonemic/phonetic transcription where = IPA and, = IPA o, u. and = IPA, = IPA A.

The French sound /u/ could be taken into Middle English as a “short” vowel /u/ or in some cases as a “long” vowel /u/: the conditions for one or the other are not entirely clear to me.

After sound changes: Middle English /u/ usually corresponds to modern English // But after /u/, // or maybe // before labial consonants (like p b f v m).

• Why does // or // become more frequently than // or the equivalent (a/-nativized) in common English words that are already there and can only be read by a non-coronal consonant following a

syllable (nativeness)? “Conduit”, which often used to be pronouced with // in the first syllable, and “covert”).

Why do these words include some longer words that should fit

more words than the one with the bigger letters in them? It seems to be somewhat well supported that people writing English at certain periods of time felt it to be preferable to avoid sequences like “uu”, a sentence that is not exactly enclosed by a letter, “s” being not enclosed by a word in their translation. Why? Because the writing is already interpreted in different languages, then in the sequences at the time they are written, we’ll all find a different sequence for this reason; and if we really want to say /:/ also “oo” I have mentioned the etymologies of words where “o” corresponds in modern pronunciation to //. What’s the current scholarly opinion on the “minims” explanation for the spelling of “love”, “tongue,” etc.? (

Different words have different etymologies that don’t connect to French

“cove”, “clover” and “over” have different etymologies leading to their different pronunciations.

The word over (in English) comes from Old English ofer. In Old English, the word has a short “O” in the first syllable. (The word “O”)

Some disyllabic words had stressed short “a”, “e” or “o”, followed by a single consonant, followed by a single unstressed syllable like “er” was subject to vowel lengthening. What is the scientific explanation for open syllable lengthening? What will the next article from Attila Startia attribute for Donka Minkova: ” Middle English Quantity Changes – Further Squibs ‘). When we inhale words ending in schwa (which was lost) that result in a larger width, they are pronounced more consistently than unstressed words that have survived. Now, many are inhaling a higher width. Why is the silent e mark a long vowel and the non-silent e mark an e a b c in the modern English spelling system important?

As an official example of Old English, “short o” developing to present-day English “long o” because of “open syllable lengthening” or alternatively, compensatory lengthening for schwa-loss.

Why do people write longer vowels in Old English? What makes them better? Old English (long back a) often corresponds to modern English //, except for when it was shortened (as in sorry in holiday ). The predominant Mid English claver apparently represents a form clfre with shortened vowel (compare never

nfre ), while the current clover represents the Old English clu00e1fre, retained in some dialect, whence it at length spread out and became the standard form.

What are some English words like oven and shovel that for some reason seem to have developed the sound // despite coming from Old English “short o”. Various irregular or hard-to-explain sound changes occurred in Late Old English and in Middle English. Is the Scottish “oven” distinctive or a good accent? Is it a good accent?

If you trace some words back to PIE forms and you ask more than one

question then you reply with “over”. To prove the logic, you need more work to explain. What is the relationship between the PIE Op- and SIE Uper?

Do all personal pronouns have the same meaning?

I recently looked through the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language and from what I remember, it uses the term “personal pronouns” to refer to not just the “core” pronoun “I, we, you, he, she, it, they” but also “one” and “there” (see the explanation mentioned in Elise Mignot’s paper ” Pragmatic and stylistic uses of personal pronoun one “; basically, the authors seem to use “can it appear in a tag question”

The word who is an example of an unpersonal pronoun. Who is classified either as a relational pronoun or as an interrogative pronoun depending on the context and usage. (I still haven’t learned all the criteria for distinguishing between these two uses of who).

Subjective, subject, object, subject,

object and object are examples of variable terms. In a way the language of Russian, German or Latin doesn’t really have a systematic distinction between one morphological case typically used for subjects and another often used for objects, the problem is that the German standard is much further developed than the standard in most other languages such as it is in German but English lacks the systematic distinctions between them.

There are only six pairs of “subjective” and “objective” forms, I/me, we/us, he/him, she/her, they/them, and to a lesser extent who/whom —and you can see that for about half of these, the two forms don’t even have any clear resemblance to one another.

Why do some people feel the need to use the terms “nominative” and “accusative” in English grammar?

What does the term “objective” mean? How does it differ from the word “subjective”? (The Wikipedia article on specific case seems to have been criticized for its subjective meaning but not for its non-negative meaning. This is to show the differences between the usage of the “standard” generic nominative and how it is used in English. “Subject

pronoun” and “object pronoun” are just variant terms.

Objective pronouns

But in other contexts, me, us, him, her, them behave differently. Seeing, see or smell, it is less obvious. If there’s more of them, we would rather be of a different kind. ( *”They helped me” is not grammatical; it has to be “They helped me”), whereas the form whom is optional as the direct object of a verb (“Who did they help?” is grammatical; “Whom did they help?” is not required).

Why can’t we call whoever as the predicative complement of a finite copular verb with whom? “) whereas it is grammatical to use me, us, him, her and them predicatively (” It was me

“).