The "S" is supposed to be silent...I'm asking this so I can show my friend the truth about the pronunciation.
207984
I have never thought about it, but now that you mention it, yes you are right, the S is silent, but the name would look silly and incorrect if it wasn't there....\n\nYou know what else? I think spelling like this with the pronunciation that we have all grown up with, we can blame the French! LOL! I'm only half joking, but there's a grain of truth when it comes to some place names because they (as a nation) were there, and other European languages do the same.\n\nIt's even worse sometimes with peoples first names and surnames.
99241
It could be as-e, as-eye, azee, a-zeye or possible other pronunciations.  If it's a person's name, ask the person, "I'm sorry, but how do you pronounce your name?" or simply, "How do you pronounce your name?"
314909
I'll take a stab at it:\n\n/lllll/ llll lllll /llll.\n. l /lll/ ll\nlll /llll/\n/llll/ llll .l. .l. ll /llll.\n.l/ l .l/ ll\n\nAnd was your question supposed to start with .lllll. ?\n\nSo did I get it right?  I wasn't sure about B.  And what is Z?
522050
Here's an example. In the Harry Potter books, the name Hermione, the (my) sound is stressed. I had never heard this name pronounced before the movie came out & kept saying (her) stressed. The (my) sound is a tad louder & longer than the rest of the sounds.\n\nHere's a link to pronunce this name. Just click on "pronunciation guide" on the left.\nhttp://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/
145606
You really need the phonetic alphabet to accurately answer this one, but here I go:\nupside down w,the vowel for short I and an N. Phonetically it would sound like win.
447500
I don't think there's such a thing.\n\nAnyway, pronouncing it is easy. Every letter is pronounced (well, theoretically, it should be).All the consonants are pronounced basically the same way as in english, with some exceptions; \n\nJ: it's like the "ch" in scottish "loch". A bit softer, maybe.\nG: before E and I, it's pronounced like a spanish "j", But;when you come across "gue","gui" groups, don't pronounce the "u". The sound it's like in "Ghent"="Guent". In that case or elsewhre, it's like the G in "gun". NEVER like in "general" in any case.\nV and B: Both are pronounced as B.\nH: It's not pronounced, except after a C. CH, like in english.\nÑ: can you say lasagna? that same GN sound.\nC: has two sounds, like K ( before A,O,U or consonant) or like TH in english "Thunder" (elsewhere).\nZ; Like TH group in "Thunder"\nQ: like K. In "QUE" and "QUI" groups, the U is not pronounced at all.\nLL and Y: BOTH like the Y in "Yellow". Exception; word "Y" meaning "And". Pronounced "ee". E.g; "You and me" = "Tu y yo", pron; Too ee jo. \nR: Either like the first R in "Repair" but harder (in the beggining of a word or before consonant) or like in "arise" (before vowel), but softer.\nRR: Like in the first R in "Repair" but harder.\n\nI think that's it, basically.\n\nVowels; unlike english, they're ALWAYS pronounced in the same manner, in every word.\n\nA: like the A of "lamb".\nE: like the E of "personal".\nI: like the I of "bit".\nO: like the O of "mob".\nU: like the OO group of "spoon", but a bit shorter.
662627
It is true that there is no "J" sound in Hebrew, though it is not difficult to trace and understand the phonetic changes by which the original consonantal "I/Y"-sound came to be pronounced as it now is in English.  (more on that below)\n\nI also doubt people who have given any thought to it actually think that the J, as pronounced in modern English, represents the Hebrew sound used in these words.    Those who know any Hebrew at all (including many who know almost none!) understand that the names you list were pronounced, in Hebrew with a consonantal "Y" sound.\n\n------------------------------------\n\nI think your underlying question is,  "Is it PROPER for us to pronounce these names (e.g., Jerusalem and Jesus) as we do?"\n\nMy answer:  Yes, for two basic reasons -- two processes common to human language.\n\n1) how names are adapted ("Anglicized") when translated \n\n2) how sounds within any living language change over time\n\n\n1)   As part of TRANSLATION, we ANGLICIZE names that we borrow into English -- a very ordinary sort of practice between any two langauges.\n\nWhen we speak these names are NOT claiming that this is "how the ancient Hebrews pronounced it" .   And we are NOT speaking biblical Hebrew, but English.     These are ANGLICIZED forms, and that is what we typically use when we bring foreign names into English.     So, for instance, we  pronounce "Paris" like an English word, including the final s-sound, NOT the way the French do [Paree, with a rather different /r/ sound from English].  Nor do we call the German city "Muenchen" [with a u-umlaut sound that does not EXIST in English, as well as a  "harsh" /ch/ sound  like that in Scottish "loch" that is likewise not native to English].    Rather we  say "Munich" [Myoo'-nik].\n\nSo, when we bring a name (or directly borrow ANY word) from a foreign language, we adapt it to the sounds and sound patterns of our own language.  Note that all this happens in part because some of the sounds and sound-patterns of the original language are unusual or even unpronounceable to those in the 'receptor' language.   So we HAVE to change it.\n\nIn fact, the more important the name is, and the more those in another culture use it, the more likely it is to be pronounced in a distinctive way that fits in with the patterns of the "receptor" language, rather than the original language.\n\nWhen it comes down to it, we seldom pronounce foreign names precisely the way speakers of those languages do (or did), and the more distant or unusual that language and its sounds, the more different the translated name will sound.\n\n2)  normal HISTORICAL changes -- pronounciation of words, and of particular letters CHANGES over time.  \n\nThis is just a  normal part of what happens with  LIVING languages --ALL of them.   (English, as a Germanic language heavily influeneced by a Romance language [Norman French] has perhaps experienced more radical changes than many others -- in grammatical forms, in vocabulary and in pronunciation.)\n\nHence, we do not even pronounce older ENGLISH words or names the way they were 'originally' pronounced.   In fact, the same goes for HEBREW.   There are certain letters in the Hebrew alphabet that are almost certainly pronounced differently by those reading biblical Hebrew or speaking modern Hebrew today  (and scholars often debate about precisely how those letters were formerly pronounced -- there's a famous OT passage based on the different pronunciation of a word sibboleth OR shibboleth... only we are not quite sure how the two groups pronounced those two s-sounds).   For that matter, some of these pronunciations changed between the time of Moses and David, David and the exile, the exile and the time of Christ...     that is not even to mention the different regional accents/dialects of the ancient language (which again are
376423
Nice one.\n\nPerformin - You are a twat! If you were to purchase an Oxford English dictionary you will notice that it is correctly spelt 'realise'.\n\nRemember they call it English because it originates from the English people - how dare you try to say that the americanised version is the correct one.\n\nTWAT!!!!!
533968
Yeah, do that, and drop all the 't's and 's's , the 'th' sound into a 'd'... There are I think some more, but I have to think about it. E- mail, me, I might come up with more later. I've imigrated to Canada as a kid and moved back to Hong Kong at like 9 and came back this Summer, so I have the Canadian acccent, though I can fake a Chinese accent good.
244308
No letter 'e'. Somebody recently posted a similar question.\n\nGoes to show that the letter 'e' contributes an awful lot to intelligibility!
232328
"comf'terbul" has a perfectly logical explanation and is an acceptable pronunciation (as is "comf'tebul")\n\nAnd why don't pronounce it "the way it's written"?  Because language simply doesn't always work that way.  And so I don't say "I-run" for "iron"; and the "t" that I pronounce in "soft" I do NOT pronounce in the form "soften" (even though it is written that way and even COMES from "soft").\n\n--------------------\n\nThis sort of re-ordering of the sounds of a word --called "METATHESIS"--  is very common in language.  It may come about by confusion, but often it happens simply because the expected form is more difficult to pronounce.    In some cases the change is considered ignorant or at least non-standard, in other instances it is the (or a) ACCEPTED pronounciation.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metathesis_(linguistics)\n\n\nExamples in English:\n1) incorrect/nonstandard:\n  "nuclear" -- pronounced as "nucular" (by educated people as well... including THREE Presidents in recent times --not just GW but Carter & Eisenhower)\n  "ax" for "ask"  (though actually BOTH forms are found in the Middle English of Chaucer)\n\n2) correct:\n  "iron" -- pronounced "i-urn"  In fact, does ANYONE say "i-ron"?  On the other hand, we DO keep the sounds in their written order in the suffixed form "ironic".  (We do the same with "irony", though it's acceptable, or at least permitted, to say "i-urnee" --as we do with "ironing".   Thus, the most important factor seems to be where the word is ACCENTED.)\n\n3) debated but probably correct\nThe example of "iron" vs. "ironic" --that is, changing the pronounciation based on where the accent falls (often related to whether there is a suffix or not)--  helps explain why we SAY "comfort"  but "comfturble".    There are two conflicting "laws" at work here. In our spelling, we do not change the base when we add the suffix "able".   But the change in the PHONOLOGY (sound pattern) pushes us to SAY the word in a way that is much easier to pronounce.  \n\nHere's how it happens.  Note that the syllable in question --"fort"--  has a slight accent in "comfort" but almost NO accent when we add the "able" suffix.  In English, adding suffixes frequently shifts or reduces accent of certain syllables.  When a syllable loses accent, the vowel typically is shortened; in an UN-accented syllable it may end up as the 'swallowed', unaccented "schwa" sound, or even completely disappear.  But this leaves us with the unaccented combination "frt" which is more difficult or at least less natural to pronounce.    The natural solution is to simplify the pronounciation, either by skipping the "r" sound (which leads some to say "comf'-tubly") or to reverse sounds ("metathesis") and say "comf'turbly".\n\n------------------\n\n(Frankly, I suspect the pronunciation "com-four-tab-ly" is  a hypercorrection.   Some people say it that way BECAUSE of the spelling, whereas the SPOKEN language long ago changed the pronounciation.  But spelling is NOT always a sure guide to the spoken language.  Based on SPELLING, some people improperly pronounce the t in "often", not recognizing that the "t" is from the short form "oft" and is LOST when -en is added . . . as in soft > soften, compare list > listen; haste > hasten, etc.)\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection\n\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nIncidentally, this process or metathesis explains the origins of some modern English words.   Old English had "brid", now it is "bird";  Old English &quo
272330
ß is called "Eszett" (es-TSET). It sounds like the S in "SOUND" (not that in "NOISE"), and as far as I know it only exists in German. \n\nYou make it with Alt-225. And it is not to be confused with β, the Greek letter Beta, which sounds as V, as other people are saying here.
56220
Hola.\nEl español es mi primer idioma, así que te puedo ayudar.\n\nThe correct way to pronounce the Spanish "y" and "ll" is with the English "j". However, an exeption would be when the "y" is by itself. Alone, it means "and". Like "Tom y Jerry" for "Tom and Jerry". In that instance the "y" would have the long "e" sound used in English, like in employEE.\n\nBuena suerte, amigo (or amiga if you're a girl)
227519
I was in Cannes last summer and everyone there pronounced it as CAN, as in a tin can, with or without the S. As we were aproaching the city on the bullet train, they said "can", but I have heard others say cans.... Check out the Cannes Guide below...
494876
you would say 'an' hour because in this crazy language, "an" precedes words that begin with vowel sounds...and since the "h" in hour is silent, it sounds like the vowels "ou", kind of like you would san an herb instead of a herb here in the US\n\nHope that helps!
624311
I like it spelled with a "k", Krystal.  You don't want it to be too different cause then people won't know how to pronounce it.
305785
You're just acting like your name, aren't you?\n\nOf course this rule only relates to the final silent e changing the initial vowel sound.  There are numerous examples where the initial vowel sound is short an unaffected by the final vowel sound:\nDELI\nDIVA\nFETA\nJAVA\nKILO\nLIMO\nMAGI\nMENU\nMESA\nMINI\nPAPA\netc.