Question about pronunciation

Compare these two sentences:
Jack would like two.
Jack would like to.

Is two pronounced the same way as to?

I'd like to ask you people (especially native speakers, and preferrably British) to vote and possibly comment on the matter.

This is important for me so please participate.

 

To, too and two have exactly the same pronunciation

I believe the term is Homonyms

 

I pronounce them differently.

 

I think that in theory, they are pronounced the same, but since one is an article and the other is a noun/adjective, they are spoken with slightly different intonations in everyday use

Thus the question is kinda biased since the second sentence has an abrupt ending, taking "to" out of the correct context since it is the last word in an incomplete sentence

So theoretically, yes, but in practice there is a slight difference. I voted yes.

 

no....

jack would like two - "two" is toooo-----

jack would like to - the "to" here is tol this means the pronunciation at the end is small and hard

if youre confused about the tooo--- the "too" is pronounced like "two" but in a high tone like " too^ "

 

The second sentence is a complete sentence. Take:
- Would you like to go to the seaside?
- I wouldn't, but Jack would like to.

The book I'm reading now states that between the two sentences in my previous post, only intonation is different, with which I disagree completely.

to is pronounced /tu/
two is pronounced /tu:/

@ BoP I would say too and two are homophones, but not to. But see the links below.

two
too
to
The third one specifically goes into the 'to go' case, where 'to' is pronounced differently.

 

They are definitely pronounced the same, but the emphasise on it depending on the sentence would vary. For example, saying 'I would like to go as well' would most probably be spoken as 'I'd like t' go as well', but 'I would like to' would probably be spoken as 'I'd like to'. So basically, they can be spoken differently, but they are pronounced in the same way. It's not a very good analogy, but it's kinda like the word 'a'. It can be pronounced as 'ay' and as 'u', but it just spoken differently depending on the emphasise in the sentence.

Anyway, to answer the question, no, there isn't a difference in the pronunciation of 'to', 'too' and 'two'. I'm surprised three people voted for 'no'.

Lastly, although there's a difference between the pronunciation of Australian English, U.K. English and American English, none pronounce it 'better' or 'in the right way'. There are definitely differences, even just between the states of Australia, and it's a common cause of discussion, but none are right and none are wrong. Also, a lot of the time, it's probably just the accent anyway, not that they're pronouncing it differently. All three dialects still have the same understanding over the language and would be able to answer things like this.

 

It really depends on the accent you have, but generally they are pronounced the same. The stress in the sentence is different though. (Jack would LIKE to) vs (Jack would like TWO).

 

*agrees him on this^ one too

 

There is a difference in intonation which results in pronouncing the words differently. Like you say /pə'mɪt/ and /'pɜːmɪt/, where it's clear that the second sound is different due to the stress being different even though the words are spellt the same (permit). It's very similar in the pair of sentences, the sentence intonation is different which results in different pronunciation.

Please compare:
Jack would like two eggs.
Jack would like to eat eggs.

Here the 2 words are pronounced differently. Needless to say, the original pair of sentences is the same as these two.

Even if you doubt my reasoning, you can check the links in my previous post.

 

The stress of each syllable in 'permit' may result in it sounding different, but that's because there're two syllables so they may sound different in contrast, but with 'to', 'too' and 'two' there's only the one syllable so any difference in the stresses on the syllables, of which there is only one, won't result in a different pronunciation any more than whispering a word and shouting a word would.

Regardless, 'to', 'too' and 'two' are all pronounced the same way.

 

i just focus on the emphasis

 

True, but it's bad English, since technically you are not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition

Touche!

PS - Yes, I am a grammar Nazi

 

Open interrogative sentences can end with them:
Where do you come from? What are you up to?

Declarative sentences can end with them:
I don't know where I come from. I know what I'm up to.

...and they're perfectly correct

@ Itza: I think we can agree on the original two sentences having different sentence level stresses. Well, these sentence level stresses can change the pronunciation even in one syllable words. As I've mentioned in an earlier post (which you seem to have missed), /tu/ is different from /tu:/, and I get these ways of pronunciation not just from my own knowledge, but from hearing my native relatives as well as from the site I've linked which is dedicated to proper pronunciation. See also the pronunciation of the one-syllable word was, which can be /wəz/ as in I was there and can be /wɒz/ as in I was there, sentence level stress being marked by bold. Whether the sentence level stress only changes the length of a phoneme or fully replaces one doesn't matter - pronunciation changes.

 

@ kuvasz. Using all that /tu/ and /tu:/ is meaningless to me and presumably most other members. 'To', 'too' and 'two' are all pronounced the same way. If you're saying that they're not, why did you ask in the first place?

'To', 'too' and 'two' are all pronounced the same way. Your example of 'was' only enforced that. 'Was' is obviously pronounced in the exact same way as 'was' as it's the exact same word. They may be spoken differently, but that is not due to pronunciation, it's due to stress and emphasis. For example, 'I was there' would not be spoken in the exact same way as 'I WAS THERE', as it just depends on the stresses and emphasis, as well as tone of voice. They are pronounced in the exact same way and stress/emphasis/tone/etc, does not change how the word is pronounced, only how it is spoken. It may sound as though that's the same thing, but it isn't. If how a word is spoken is directly linked to its pronunciation, then every word would have tonnes of different pronunciations depending on how they're used in the sentence.

 

kuvasz's point was that /u/ and /u:/ are different sounds, so if one word is pronounced with /u/ it's different the the one with /u:/

Geez, English and it's problems. As difficult as Polish may be to learn, at least we only have one pronouncuation for each letter so if you are given a word there's only one way to pronounce it, no problems. (except borrowings from other languages but that's the same for all others too)

 

Because someone said they were pronounced the same way, so I decided to ask you lot about it. I didn't ask it because I was uncertain, I already know they aren't. You got the impression that I didn't know the answer because I remained neutral in my first post to avoid influencing others.

Do you even know what pronunciation means? If you can't see past mere alphabetical letters then I don't think you should continue this discussion. Just because a word is spellt in a way doesn't mean its pronunciation can be concluded, no matter how simple the word is. Read can be "read" in present tense and "read" in past tense, yet they're spellt the same way. Oh and stress and emphasis are not just key components of pronunciation, but also distinctive features (permit - permit).

As for you saying "They may be spoken differently, but that is not due to pronunciation". Speech has nothing to do with pronunciation? I seriously hope you don't believe than. I mean that's like saying physics have nothing to do with riding a bike.

 

@ Meee. I'm aware that they'd be different sounds, but things like that don't help. It'd be the equivalent of giving a number in binary or a definition with an unknown word. It's not helpful. Yes, I can physically see that '/u/' is different to '/u:/' but that doesn't help me get anywhere. It doesn't actually prove to me that they're not pronounced the same way, it's basically just like saying 'they're not pronounced the same'.

About the language, yeah, it's one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, language to learn. Even most English speakers don't truly appreciate this. Fortunately I've learnt Latin since year 7, which isn't just like learning German or Japanese as their language has a completely different structure to ours, or pretty much any other modern language. Because of that, you've basically got to learn everything from scratch. Vocab, grammar, everything. Most people understand the extreme, and I mean really extreme, basics, like the present (I run), perfect or past (I ran) and future (I will run) tenses, but that's about it. With Latin you learn pretty much everything. Imperfect, pluperfect, future perfect, infinitive, imperative, nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative, vocative, locative, and the list goes on... and on... and on... It's only then when you realise how much of an awkward language English is and how many exceptions to rules, etc, there are.

@ kuvasz. I was just wondering why you were asking when you already had such a strong opinion. It's not often that someone will ask a completely open question and then argue strongly for one side, and one side only.

Also, don't try and patronise me. I'm Australia born of Australian parents, go to a highly selective high school and, as I mentioned earlier, have learnt Latin since year 7. Of course I know what pronunciation means and of course I can see past the alphabetical letters, so if you're going to continue making such impudent and foolish accusations to try and make yourself feel big or whatever, then it's you who shouldn't continue with this discussion. Your example of 'was' and 'was' is pointless because it's the exact same word. Your example of 'permit' and 'permit' are also pointless because one's a verb and the other's a noun. They're completely different forms of the word and that's why they aren't pronounced the same. Your example of 'read' and 'read' is also pointless because they're also completely different forms of the word. One is the present, indicative, active and the other is the perfect, indicative, active. They're both either first, second or third person and either singular or plural. It can also be the singular or plural imperative, in which case it would be pronounced the same as the present, indicative, active. Happy?

Stress and emphasis come after pronunciation and are not a part of it. Just like the examples I gave earlier, shouting a word changes its stresses and emphasises but it does not change how the word is pronounced. The same goes for 'to', 'too' and 'two'. They are all pronounced the same but if the stress of the sentence is more focused on one of them, then it will be spoken differently. It will not be pronounced differently, only the stress and emphasis will be changed, as they come afterwards.

Lastly, just for the record, 'spelt' is spelt as 'spelt', not 'spellt'.

 

Interesting that you're studying a language and have no idea about phonetics, which is the only true way of presenting what I'm saying. Anyway, I will still try. Permit (v) and permit (n) have different stresses (second, and first syllable respectively). Because of the stress, pronunciation changes (I don't care if you don't understand these, it's the only way to show the difference clearly) from /pə'mɪt/ to /'pɜ:mɪt/. Stress doesn't come after pronunciation, it's an essential part of it.

Wait a little while and then reread your post. It's pathetic that one of my example isn't good because it's the same word and the other isn't good because it's a different word. Why not just say my examples aren't good because they're given by me, or they're not good because they prove my point - either way, it just shows that you can't be reasoned with, because you just shove off all my support without considering it for more than 2 seconds.

Also, concerning your pronunciation/speech (shouting) argument, wikipedia falsified it as soon as I looked up pronunciation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation

Concerning your doubt about 'was', the pronunciation site falsified that as well:
http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=was&submit=Submit
This in turn means that sentence stress does change intial word pronunciation. Consequently, even if 'to' and 'two' are pronounced the same on their own (I don't agree with that, but that's beside the point right now), in the original sentences they are pronounced differently.

As for your very last point, I'm sad to see you stoop down to a level where you desperately start nitpicking at unimportant details.

 

Just because I haven't memorised all the fancy phonetics representation, it does not mean that I have no clue about phonetics or pronunciation. 'Permit' as a noun and 'permit' as a verb are different words, they're just spelt the same. Just because they're spelt the same way it does not mean that they aren't separate words and pronounced differently. I don't even really know why you brought up 'permit' in the first place as it has no correlation to 'to', 'too' or 'two'. 'Permit' and 'permit' are spelt the same but are pronounced differently, while 'to', 'too' and 'two' are pronounced the same and spelt differently. They're basically opposites. Either way, 'permit' as a noun and 'permit' as a verb are different words.

About your two examples of 'was' and 'permit'. They're pointless because they're completely different examples and do nothing to show that 'to', 'too' and 'two' are pronounced differently. 'Permit' and 'permit' are heteronyms, 'was' and 'was' are both the same with different stresses, and 'to', 'too' and 'two' are homophones.

Wikipedia did not falsify that point. The pronunciation of a word is how you say that unstressed word. If you're told to pronounce a particular word, no-one will put a stress on it. Using 'was' as an example, no-one's going to say 'was' as in 'I was there', as though they're trying to be convincing or forceful, they'd just say it as 'was' as in 'I was there'. So basically, the unstressed pronunciation is first, then stress is applied. The standard pronunciation of a word will always be unstressed. You can get the pronunciation of a stressed word, but that is obviously based off the unstressed word. So, despite it being true that because of the stress the word will be pronounced differently, the standard pronunciation of the word will always be unstressed. Another example of this, apart from shouting, is using the word as the end of a question. Questions always end in an upward inflection. If you say 'I was.' and 'I was?', the word 'was' may be pronounced differently, but that is due to the stress, which is applied to the unstressed pronunciation of 'was'. 'Was' is obviously not pronounced with an upwards inflection, but when used at the end of a question, it is. That's not due to the pronunciation of 'was', it's due to the stress in the sentence. This does not really apply to 'permit' and 'permit' as they're not pronounced in the same way to begin with. 'Was' as well as 'to', 'too' and 'two' are pronounced in the same way to begin with, but depending on the context, the stress may make them sound different.

Summing up, if you're arguing that the stressed and dependable pronunciations of 'to', 'too' and 'two' are different, then you're right, because course they'll be different. However, if you're arguing that the unstressed and standard pronunciation are the same, then you're wrong because they're homophones.

As for my last point, where the hell does it imply that I was having a go at you? I was not trying to have a go at you, was not trying to weaken your case and was not clutching at straws, I was trying to help out. From what I've heard you're not a native speaker, although I may have heard incorrectly, you're obviously concerned about English, otherwise you wouldn't have discussed, yet along started, this topic, and lastly it obviously wasn't just a typo as you spelt it incorrectly a number of times. I never said anything that remotely suggested that I was having a go at you for it, not did I say it in an incriminating manner. If you look closely you'll see that I said 'just for the record'. Not for the sake of weakening your argument, and not for anything else. Just for the record. Can no-one correct someone else's spelling errors in a thread about pronunciation, etc? Just because I'm arguing for the opposite side does that automatically mean that everything I say is incriminating or vindictive? You're obviously concerned about English and it wasn't just a typo, so I corrected you. So sorry if that caused any offence but if you were truly that quick to take it, you most probably deserve it.