Liaisons / "Linking" words

[Masfer]

Lately I have been paying attention to the way I pronounce the -ed part in the verbs when they're in past tense/participle. For example, I would say:

- I switched on the TV, trying to put the stress in the ed part. Otherwise, I believe people don't realize I'm talking about the past :?

- She sends it to me. Same problem here.

When I try to emphasize these sounds I have to make a kind of little pause to separate the -ed/s word from the next one. This strange thing is avoided if I make a liaison between these word, that is:

- I switchedon the TV
- She sendsit to me.

Actually I think this is what people do when speaking fast. Besides It sounds much more natural to me than the first one, though I think both ways are correct. Should I keep on doing these linking between words?

[RonBee]

Do you mean say two words almost as if they are one, like sendzit?

I do think that context generally indicates what tense is intended. (In AE, we turn on the TV.)

:)

[Tdol]

It should really be 'swtichTon'.

[Masfer]

Do you mean say two words almost as if they are one, like sendzit?

Yes, I didn't realise that the sound was sendzit instead of sendsit. The same with switchTon

Merry Xmas!

[RonBee]

It's pretty common to run words together like that in speech. (Some call it connected speech..) An es at the end of a word often has a zee sound, as in bends, mends, and sends. And the next word is said as if it begins with the sound that the other word ends with. (There is another example: ends, said as endz.)

:)

[Casiopea]

There are two things going on here. First, the sound change is a natural process. It's called voicing assimilation:

At the end of a word, a voiceless sound (e.g. p, t, s, k) become voiced (e.g. b, d, z, g) if it comes after a voiced sound, like this,

/s/ => [z]
sends => send[z]

That pronunciation is English. It's the English "accent". Note, the pronunciation send[s] is not English, and, moreover, if pronounced that way it's a tell-tale sign that the speaker is not a native English speaker. That is, non-native speakers say send[s]it.

At the end of a word, a voiced sound (e.g. b, d, z, g) become voicless (e.g. p, t, s, g) if it comes after a voiceless sound, like this,

/d/ => [t]
switched => switch[t]
(the pronunication switch[d] is not English)

Other examples include cats, dogs, roses.

cats => cat[s]
dogz => dog[z]
roses => ros[Iz]

Second, pronouncing two words as one, like this,

sends it => sen[z]it
switched on => switch[t]on

is attributed to syllable structure contraints. CV(C) syllables are the more preferred in English. If there are too many Consonants or too few Consonants, the array of sounds is restructured, like this,

Syllable Restructuring
The sounds [z] is moved to word-initial position to form a CVC syllable:
1. CVCCC+VC => CVCC+CVC

EX: send[z] it => send+[z]it Syllable Restructuring

Syllable Reduction
"d" is deleted. It interferes with the speech flow.
2. CVCC+CVC => CVC+CVC

EX: send+[z]it => sen[z]it Syllable Reduction

So, in the end, after voicing assimilation takes place and syllable structure contraints are satisfied, the string "sends it" is pronounced as sen[z]it, without [d]. That's the English "accent". The pronunciation send[z]it, with [d], is not English.

:D

One of my favorites is this,

It's not is pronounced as It's [s]not.

:D

[Masfer]

Great explanation !

Happy new year ! ! Feliz año nuevo !

[Casiopea]

Great explanation !

Happy new year ! ! Feliz año nuevo !

You're welcome.

Happy New Year! Akemashite Omedetou Gozaimusu!

:D

[Aivaras]

And what about "it's dark" or "it's zero"?. If I am right, we should say [its da:k],
[its zie:reu].

(P.S. According to the rules of Lithuanian (my native) assimilation, Lithuanians would like to say [itz da:k] or even [idz da:k] and [idziereu] or [iziereu]).

[M56]

You're welcome.

Happy New Year! Akemashite Omedetou Gozaimusu!

:D

This page is not too bad:

http://www.englishclub.com/pronunciation/linking-2.htm