"University" doesn't really begin with a vowel. It begins with a "y" sound (like "you") which is a consonant. It's sound, not spelling, that's important. This is why we don't say or write "an university".
Color me confused. "You" sounds like "u" - which I had always thought was a vowel. (The way "u" is said when the alpha bet is recited. Is that not the "u" sound?)
That's two sounds – "y" and "oo" (or, in IPA, [j] and [u]). English did some pretty weird things to its vowels in the 15th and 16th centuries – turning older [u] into [ju] was one of them. Our spelling still reflects the way things were pronounced 800 years ago (just look at "knight"), and this has confused schoolchildren for a long time.
Naively, I thought that a soft sound = vowel, including sounds for which you don't have proper letters (unlike Russian): yu, ya, yo. Everything else = consonant.
A vowel is a speech sound where the air flow is not restricted. The "y" or [j] sound restricts it a little – not as much as, for example, a [p], but still some.
The semivowels [j] and [w] are confusing because they're basically short versions of the vowels [i] and [u] put next to an even more "open" vowel, to which they have to play second fiddle. There's no reason why a language couldn't analyse [ju] as [iu], and give words like English "a/an" their "next word begins with a vowel" form instead of their "next word begins with a consonant" form. But English analyses it as [ju], so we get the consonant form: "a" instead of "an".
I won't venture to say whether the first part of Russian ?, ? and ? is a consonant or a vowel. Are there any Russian words that change form depending on that question (like English "a/an") which would tell us?
The Russian letters are definitely vowels, that I know. We don't break them up into "first part and second part" - it's one sound to us.
Thanks for explaining.
Do you really need to have two different pronunciations of "the"?
23/03/2010 02:06:02 PM
- 1285 Views
I've never heard of that in my life.
23/03/2010 02:29:37 PM
- 546 Views
I pronounce it both ways
23/03/2010 02:35:45 PM
- 540 Views
I have never actually heard anyone say "all intensive purposes".
23/03/2010 05:25:37 PM
- 517 Views
Really? I'd say most people say it incorrectly and most don't even know...
23/03/2010 09:35:49 PM
- 505 Views
Or irregardless. *shudders* I saw it in the dictionary but really...
26/03/2010 12:03:13 PM
- 464 Views
What Joe said, almost.
23/03/2010 04:51:08 PM
- 717 Views
Seems to me that only works if you pronounce "history" without the H. *NM*
23/03/2010 05:02:29 PM
- 353 Views
That's my point. I've never heard anyone say it without the "h." *NM*
24/03/2010 04:55:35 PM
- 291 Views
Never heard that one
23/03/2010 05:09:40 PM
- 470 Views
Heh.
23/03/2010 05:13:17 PM
- 591 Views
I speak mid-west English and have never said an history or ever heard anyone else use it.
23/03/2010 09:38:53 PM
- 565 Views
I've heard it spoken that way several times--on TV/radio by someone trying to be "serious." *NM*
24/03/2010 05:05:48 PM
- 297 Views
One is sufficient.
23/03/2010 02:30:53 PM
- 689 Views
Re: Do you really need to have two different pronunciations of "the"?
23/03/2010 02:46:41 PM
- 658 Views
As long as you don't say, "should of" 'cos then I must beat you.
23/03/2010 05:49:09 PM
- 569 Views

Re: As long as you don't say, "should of" 'cos then I must beat you.
23/03/2010 06:09:27 PM
- 452 Views

I think that there are people who pronounce The with that convention
23/03/2010 02:47:59 PM
- 541 Views
Unfortunately you chose two very bad examples.
23/03/2010 02:48:42 PM
- 742 Views
British English is weird oO
23/03/2010 02:59:49 PM
- 553 Views
"y" is a consonant? or the "u" sound
23/03/2010 09:02:57 PM
- 661 Views
Hopefully this will explain.
23/03/2010 11:29:58 PM
- 578 Views
Re: Hopefully this will explain.
25/03/2010 08:40:21 PM
- 722 Views
Whatever the nativespeakers say
23/03/2010 05:01:16 PM
- 510 Views
Do you mean "consistent"? If not, I can't work out what you mean by "consequent".
23/03/2010 05:05:38 PM
- 472 Views
I can testify that that one is a terribly annoying false friend in Dutch. And apparently in Swedish.
23/03/2010 05:10:03 PM
- 611 Views
What do people confuse "eventual" with? "Eventful"?
23/03/2010 05:12:02 PM
- 480 Views
You never realize even the most obvious of these things in your own language.
23/03/2010 05:16:35 PM
- 539 Views
"Gift" has amused me ever since I started learning German.
23/03/2010 05:39:48 PM
- 421 Views
Oh, it must be an incredibly important word to know when visiting Europe.
23/03/2010 08:12:19 PM
- 529 Views
Even so.
23/03/2010 08:29:52 PM
- 528 Views
I wasnt invited!
23/03/2010 09:04:16 PM
- 521 Views
You were so.
23/03/2010 09:05:58 PM
- 453 Views
No, I better finish my stupid essay!
23/03/2010 09:08:06 PM
- 516 Views
I can't imagine a world where that could possibly be as rewarding or invigorating as my company.
23/03/2010 09:11:49 PM
- 462 Views

Nah, it's not about EFL, it's about Dutch-English false friends.
23/03/2010 05:17:28 PM
- 649 Views
Wait! The English eventual doesnt mean that?
23/03/2010 05:21:19 PM
- 501 Views
I think the English "eventual" applies to something that is more certain (or assumed) in the future
23/03/2010 05:25:39 PM
- 437 Views
How would you translate eventueel into English? "Potential"? "The possibility of"?
23/03/2010 05:23:58 PM
- 589 Views
I think I'd ditch the adjective and switch the sentence around to a different construction.
23/03/2010 05:33:19 PM
- 616 Views
Do you only use it for future? Or all possible things that may or may not be?
23/03/2010 10:27:16 PM
- 514 Views
Dutch is way closer to Norwegian than to Danish.
23/03/2010 11:07:51 PM
- 468 Views

Re: Dutch is way closer to Norwegian than to Danish.
23/03/2010 11:09:54 PM
- 581 Views

*nods* Similar, but not the same, then.
23/03/2010 11:12:37 PM
- 489 Views
Re: *nods* Similar, but not the same, then.
23/03/2010 11:22:52 PM
- 439 Views
Isn't that T an adverbial marker, then?
23/03/2010 11:28:01 PM
- 521 Views
tim might be able to answer that better than me, as he probably understands what you are referringto
23/03/2010 11:33:07 PM
- 447 Views
Re: Isn't that T an adverbial marker, then?
23/03/2010 11:39:37 PM
- 542 Views
Re: Isn't that T an adverbial marker, then?
23/03/2010 11:42:29 PM
- 857 Views
Nah, I know, that's why I said "eventuell" was a bad example - it makes no sense as a predicate.
23/03/2010 11:51:06 PM
- 590 Views
I would come in and lay the smackdown, but unfortunately I have to leave in a few minutes.
24/03/2010 09:27:28 AM
- 425 Views
Re: I would come in and lay the smackdown, but unfortunately I have to leave in a few minutes.
25/03/2010 12:15:14 PM
- 551 Views
konsekvent
23/03/2010 06:22:26 PM
- 494 Views
We need to make a Dutch-Norwegian-Swedish mixture language to replace English, clearly.
*NM*
23/03/2010 06:27:23 PM
- 349 Views

Re: We need to make a Dutch-Norwegian-Swedish mixture language to replace English, clearly.
23/03/2010 06:28:47 PM
- 595 Views

Why dilute a perfectly good language with norwegian, dutch and austrian? *NM*
23/03/2010 08:12:40 PM
- 300 Views
Cool! I'm in!
23/03/2010 08:16:32 PM
- 503 Views
I've no doubt its grammar is awesome... making more sense, that sounds rather less likely.
*NM*
23/03/2010 08:23:10 PM
- 305 Views

I don't, but I'm American, and apparently that makes the difference.
23/03/2010 05:55:10 PM
- 544 Views
Try it with a bunch of words starting with vowels, then.
23/03/2010 05:59:03 PM
- 460 Views
I don't know if we need to, but it would sound silly if we didn't
23/03/2010 06:05:53 PM
- 453 Views
Re: I don't know if we need to, but it would sound silly if we didn't
23/03/2010 06:26:30 PM
- 623 Views
Thuh is what most people I know use although I find that more educated people use thee at times.
23/03/2010 09:58:57 PM
- 481 Views