I'm from the Southeastern US. That omitting the final "t" sound is in a good many words. But when we do it, we usually pronounce the last sound a little differently than usual. I mean, it's basically the same sound, but we time it differently and such.
For example, even though we don't pronounce the "t" in "aren't", we still say "aren't" differently than we would "aren'". Same thing between "different" and "differen", or "mitigate" and "mitigae".
It's real difficult to describe the difference on paper. It's kind of like we don't say the last sound quite as long, or that we stop making the last sound very suddenly. Except that might not be 100% true, and we really slightly alter the sound into something more like a gutteral whisper, and we use something like a different, harsher tone. In this way, relatively soft sounds like "ay" and "n" are kind of hardened and are made to sound more like "ayt" or "nt". We fake the "t" sound essentially. Again it's something really hard to describe, but hopefully this helps.
Unlike in some other languages, English spelling tends to reflect the developmental history of the word rather than its pronunciation. Therefore, it takes more learning and practice to pronounce English words. After learning the basic rules, you also need to learn some exceptions, and with enough practice, you may be able to spot some patterns.
Given that English is built on Greek, Latin, Anglo-Saxon / Norse, and French influence, and continues to assimilate words from other languages, it helps to consider which set of pronunciation rules to apply depending on the word's origin. For example, "ch" in words of Greek origin (e.g. psyche) would generally have a /k/ sound. In words taken from French during an earlier period (e.g. chief), "ch" would have a /tʃ/ sound. Later French borrowings (e.g. chef) would have a softer /ʃ/ sound.
Even with lots of experience, any English speaker who claims to be able to read any word correctly is lying. Here is a whole thread on Reddit full of words that people have mispronounced for years. Some examples include:
- hyperbole, epitome, synecdoche
- draught
- lingerie, macabre, melee
- segue
- açai
- awry
- victuals
- quinoa
- chalcedony
I'd also add
- row (in the sense of a fight)
- chassis
No amount of experience would ever help you guess the British pronunciation of "lieutenant".
Part of the difficulty is, believe it or not, deliberately introduced. In words like "scent" and "debt", silent letters were added to make them fit their etymology.
Your only consolation is that English is still easier to read than Chinese.
Have you figured out the pronunciation of the words above? Here are the answers!
/haɪˈpɝːbəli/ /ɪˈpɪt.ə.mi/ /sɪˈnɛkdəki/
/dɹɑːft/
/ˌlɑn.(d)ʒəˈɹeɪ/ /məˈkɑːbɹə/ /mɛˈleɪ/
/ˈsɛɡweɪ/
/ˈa.saj/
/əˈɹaɪ/
/ˈvɪtəlz/
/ˈkinˌwɑ/
/kælˈsɛdəni/
/raʊ/
/ˈtʃæsi/ or /ˈʃæsi/
/lɛfˈtɛnənt/
Best Answer
There are always some people who are exceptions, but yes, native English speakers in general do clearly and easily distinguish these sounds.
I'm not a linguist, but from what I've read and seen it tends to be fairly common that native speakers of a language will easily distinguish phonetic differences that affect meaning, while ignoring those that don't. I'm guessing your native language doesn't distinguish these sounds: perhaps one of them isn't used, the same letter (or equivalent) can represent either sound, or which sound is used in a given word depends on the speaker's dialect.
Most English speakers would have a similar problem learning a language in which the sounds of k as in skip (not aspirated) and k as in kill (aspirated in most dialects, almost pronounced khill) are distinguished (affecting meaning). As a native English speaker I can hear the difference if I think about it, but as far as understanding spoken English goes they're both the sound of k. (Thanks to Peter Olsen for the example.)