Do you Americans pronounce differently "can" and "can't"?
827379
can is pronounced  [kæn] (diagraph) when it's stressed (like in a short answer, yes I can), and [kən] (with schwa) when unstressed (as in "I can play tennis") and it works for both varieties of English\n\nThe negative is different for British and American English since in BE it's pronounced [ka:nt] (with a latin a) and in AE [kænt] (with a diagraph)
190774
I go back and forth between the two.\n\nI am an American, and the standard American spelling use one "l".\n\nMy ex-husband was a Brit, and the standard British spelling uses two. He always insisted on "ll," and I sort of got into the habit.\n\nBoth are correct, one is simply American, the other British.\n\nWebster's Dictionary shows both:\n\n"Cancel &#92;Can"cel&#92;, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Canceled or Cancelled;" etc.
277081
and you'd be surprised at the number of americans who think there is a language called 'canadian' as well!\n\nthe two (american and what you call 'proper' english) are related enough that it may be better to classify one or the other as more of a written 'dialect' than a whole different language.  i realize that 'dialect' is usually reserved for the spoken word, but it's a good fit in this case, do you think?\n\none comment, you DO convey an air of 'superiority', intentional or not, when you distinguish between american and proper english... do you wish to imply that american english is improper?  there are always a few who will take great exception... but i'm not one of them.\n\nregards, 'over here'.
326715
there's a difference in can't and won't and why he is either of the 2.get back to us on that one.
761251
Actually, one can pronounce it either way...and a couple other ways in addition. It's nothing more than a phonological difference in dialect.
444923
Huh?!  Speak American, Please...
900683
Its the same with two, too and to.  Drives me insane.  I cant believe people still get this wrong.
403675
Sure they can. With practice. It's because the Japanese language does not distinguish between /l/ and /r/, ınstead using a sound somewhere between the two of them. If you've been speaking nothing but Japanese for your whole life, it's very difficult during conversation to constantly try to make your 'r's and 'l's distinct.\n\nTo comment on alyck's comment, actually they're not bouncing willy-nilly between /r/ and /l/. It's that their single sound is between them and sounds more like an /r/ when we expect an /l/ and more like an /l/ when we expect an /r/.  In fact, they're using the same sound in both. Like how it seems to us that a lot of Europeans say 'wery vell', when actually they're using the same half-w, half-v sound in both words.\n\n\nIt's the same reason so many Europeans pronounce the two th sounds as /t/, /d/, /z/, /s/ or whatever.\n\nAnd the same reason we English speakers so mutilate sounds like 'ö' when we learn foreign languages!
368137
First, the pronunciation "nucular" is considered non-standard by Americans.  You hear about it because some prominent people have used it this way. (Bush-bashers like to act like he came up with it on his own.  They also somehow have failed to notice that Jimmy Carter --who was a nuclear engineer in the Navy!!-- has always said it that way too!  I'm also told Eisenhower said it this way.)\n\nSecond, it is 'stoopid' to assume something about someone' intelligence from their accent, regionalisms, use of 'nonstandard forms' or even outright personal mispronunciations.  There are brilliant folk who 'sound like hicks' to others of us, and people of quite "refined speech" who are dim bulbs.\n\nFinally, this sort of inversion of sounds (the linguistic term is "metathesis") is a fairly natural occurrence in languages of all sorts.  (I used to think this sort of thing was "wrong", until I studied Hebrew and learned about the regular metathesis of certain verb forms [in this case, reflected in the spelling].) There are lots of reasons for this, though perhaps the main one is that the inversion of sounds makes it much easier to pronounce.\n\nA fun example is seen in the way young children often do this, as in saying 'pisghetti' for 'spaghetti', or my own daugher's 'chicken' for 'kitchen', but adults do it too.  Some result in dialectal or nonstandard forms (e.g., saying /ax/ for the word "ask", though this is actually a very old variant, reflected in Chaucer!).  Some are widely accepted, sometimes even THE standard pronunciation (e.g., saying /comf-ter-ble/ for "comfortable".  In fact, if not for this sort of inversion we'd still be saying  'brid' rather than the (corrupted?) form 'bird', and 'thrid' instead of 'third'!  It also accounts for why we say "tornado" though the word is derived from Spanish "tronada".\n\nIn the case of 'nuclear', the ending -ular is much more common in English, and there is a tendency to adopt words to sounds and patterns elsewhere in the language.  But even more basic than that -- 'nucular' allows you to use two "back vowels" /oo/ and /uh/ (i.e., vowel-sounds made in the back of the throat), which is easier than switching to the front vowel /ee/.
538378
sounds to me like the difference between British English and American English.  \n\nsince Canada is/was more influenced by the united kingdom than the US, it's probably more normal for you to use aeroplane , which i'm assuming is the british word for it.
940918
We dont have an accent....we all sound the same. It's Americans (who all sound different) who have the accent.
527688
As many people have said there are many American accents. The approach would also differ for Australians and English (which in turn has a wide variety in accents). I'm an Aussie and to do a British accent involves a more forced articulation of the vowels (i.e. away from the centre mid, e.g. opening the mouth further with "a") a slight lengthening of the vowels and obviously less slurring, contractions of words and glottalisation of vowels that usually goes with an Aussie accent. In regards to intonation I generally have to put a dampener on the way I use pitch to express myself and be more strict on the way words are stressed.\nAn American accent would generally involve a degree of nasalisation of the vowels for Aussies and Brits alike. The stress intonation I generally find stronger (though not rigidly so) in an American accent than either British or Australian. The pitch intonation is weaker than Aussie accents but stronger than English ones. Glottalisation in American accents is relatively rare but moreso than British. Articulation and length of vowels varies a bit for American accents but generally closer to an Australian accent (same goes for contractions though they are used differently). Slurring varies a lot in it's degree so can't say much there. Glides on vowels I think are less pronounced than both English and  Australian accents.\nThere's also the issue of increased volume and more forced body language, though in reality it's not as big of an issue as we'd make out.
1179985
N and Ñ are two entirely different letters, with entirely different sounds. N sounds as in English, but Ñ sounds like NY in canyon, or NI in onion. Also, "new" (British pron.) sounds like "ñu" to us, Spanish speakers. It's like N and Y spoken together. So it would depend on what you want to say.\n\nADDED LATER:\n\nI'm afraid there is no such rule as the one you're asking for. Of course if you know how to pronounce the word, you'll know which letter to use, and reversely, if you know how to spell it, you'll know how to read it. But if you don't have a clue, and you want to predict from the original English word, which one you will have to use, I'm afraid there is nothing you can do to know which letter is required in each specific case. You know for us, N and Ñ are not just as A and Á (i.e.: a letter with or without accent). We take N and Ñ to be two independent letters, just as M and R, to say any example. So, knowing which one to use of these two has never been an issue. They are two different letters, and each has a place. And you don't wonder, in English, why is it that "month" is spelt with an M rather than with an R. They are two independent letters.
691650
No, they are not the same. The first one is grammatically incorrect & should not be used. The second is grammatically correct & is used in the context of the comparison e.g "Isn't there the same problem in the English government as in the American government, in regards to international trade?"
534402
Most people cannot pronounce the word nuclear.  In my experience in broadcasting I have only met a handful of people (non-professionals) who even know how to pronounce it.  If the media had not jumped on his mispronunciation, most American s would not have even known his pronunciation was incorrect.\n\nNu-clear. (Only two syllables)\n\nnot\n\nNu-Kle-ur
728273
Of course it is not!  That`s why it`s called American English.\nIt`s different even from Canadian English (there are about 4000 Canadianisms and word usages that differ).  A few Americanisms are even the exact opposite of how the words are used elsewhere in the English speaking world - for example "to table" in the political sense means to remove from consideration or debate in American English while it means to formally propose for consideration and debate everywhere else English is spoken.\n\nI, an American, used to do a lot of foreign travel and I always made it a habit, when introduced to someone who learned English as a foreign language, whether he or she was taught\nBritish or American, so I could speak in the idiom he or she had learned and avoid confusion.
130388
No I can't - can YOU?