pronunciation - How to make schwa sound?

I'm not a native English speaker, and my language doesn't have the SCHWA sound.
It would be so helpful if there are any tips to make the sound.
Thanks,

word choice - How do I choose between ‘who’ or ‘whom’ when the subject pronoun is murky?

A friend needs help with his who and whom

Right on the heels of my recent question regarding why 'who' and 'whom' present difficulties for so many native and non-native learners, comes another complex case of ‘who’ and ‘whom’, because my friend, who is doing graduate studies in Public Administration, needs to get his 'who' and 'whom' technically correct as part of an official report he is preparing on a service-related matter, one relevant portion of which I have extracted as an example in the appendix to this question.

The language of his report is bureaucratically complicated and his Supervising Teacher, who has a dual doctorate in English and Public Administration, is very pedantic that the English should be absolutely grammatically correct, which includes the prescriptive use of ‘who’ and ‘whom’.

This means that the excellent generic advice

“use who in every case and always avoid whom”

cannot, unfortunately, be applied here. Many grammatically pedantic non-native teachers in my country insist on the proper use of 'whom', especially in official reports and dissertations.

My friend therefore needs a reliable practical approach (that can be applied in any given case) to decide whether 'who' or 'whom' should be employed in a particular situation.

---

When does it get complicated?

Problems arise when the sentence does not obviously require a subject pronoun, and the concerned verb is moreover not obviously transitive, making it difficult to decide whether it needs an object pronoun. Again, when the sentence has multiple verbs and clauses, where does one look for an indication as to whether it needs a subject pronoun or an object pronoun?

Since I am no grammarian and have always used grammar by instinct and experience, I am struggling with the whole concept here. That is the reason for asking this question at EL&U.

---

Appendix: Example sentences from my friend's report

I have extracted one relevant passage to better illustrate the problem and this is not a request for proofreading.

"A study of employee expectations regarding future confirmation in Government service, with special emphasis on the ethical aspects in the subjects' claim that long-term provisional employment is a virtual promise of future confirmation":

This special short project conducted a detailed case study of 5 typical auxiliary health care workers who(m) the Government has instructed Heads of Department to terminate from long-standing provisional employment.

The Department of Public Health had allotted special allowances for all subjects who(m) the Supervising Teacher considered deserving of compensatory remuneration for their time and effort spent participating in this project.

Mr.A, who(m) the academic committee had originally advised against, was however selected as the 5th subject due to a lack of other 'typical' cases.

The Supervising Teacher Mrs.B later raised an objection regarding payment of the special allowance to Mr.A, who(m) she had expressed reservations about in writing, leading to his initial disqualification by the academic committee, although he was subsequently selected and did actually participate as a subject of the study.

The Head of the Accounts Department delivered the official opinion that a person who(m) the Supervising Teacher had specifically shown a reluctance towards nominating as a subject of the study could not be considered for the award of any special allowance.

Answer

First of all, each of the examples given in the body of your question should be "whom."

This is a holdover from when the English language had cases, which you sort of referenced by noting the difficulty in identifying a subject. Who is always a subject, while whom is either a direct object, indirect object, or object of preposition:

1) Whom did you kill? (DO)
2) To whom did you give the book? (IO)
3) Who is the person about whom you are talking? (ObjP)

If it is difficult to tell by looking at the original sentence, try moving the who/whom in the sentence to see whether it holds an object position:

1) ...the Government has instructed Heads of Department to terminate whom from long-standing provisional employment.

2)...the Supervising Teacher considered whom deserving of compensatory remuneration...

3)...the academic committee had originally advised against whom...

4)...she had expressed reservations about whom in writing...

5)...the Supervising Teacher had specifically shown a reluctance towards nominating whom...

It may initially feel weird performing this kind of move operation, but if you can't immediately see whether the who/whom is acting as an object or not, then this is the easiest way to disambiguate that.

emphasis - Is "It is these two issues that we need to pay attention to." a correct sentence?

I hear many native speakers do say sentences that do not strictly follow the subject-verb agreement grammar rules. (This is off-topic, but do they do it without realizing it?)

But in writing, this shouldn't be the case. So I'm wondering how to phrase the sentence in the title. I cannot specify the exact reason, but I can sense that there is a difference in how the two sentences sound:

1. We need to pay attention to these two issues.


2. It is these two issues that we need to pay attention to.

For me, the latter seems to emphasize the issues after mentioning the issues beforehand, whereas the former just sounds weaker.

According to the subject-verb agreement, the latter should be written in other form. But how?

Thanks.

"All who can understand..." or "All whom can understand..."?

I understand the concept of using the he/him rule for who/whom (he = who, him = whom), but I am not sure about how to go about the following sentence for an art project:

All who can understand and accept that are welcome.

or

All whom can understand and accept that are welcome.

grammar - Which is correct, I or me?

Which is correct?

The photo shows my kids and me at the party.

The photo shows my kids and I at the party

Another one: Which is correct?

This is Jean and I at the swimming pool.

This is Jean and me at the swimming pool.

pronunciation - Why the extra syllable in words like these ending in -r and -l?

First-off, I'm not a native speaker.

I've noticed that a lot of words ending in -r and -l are pronounced as if they had an extra syllable. Especially when they have a -ee- or -ai- sound.

Consider

• reap


• real


• rear

The last two are pronounced ree-ul and ree-ur. Reap is a one-syllable word. Others aren't.

More examples: beep/beer, cake/care, laid/lair

Also, words with most other sounds preceding -r don't seem to follow the pattern. Car is not caa-ur. More is not mo-ur.

So my questions are:

1. Is the extra syllable just something I'm hearing, or is it actually pronounced?


2. If it is pronounced, why do only -r and -l follow the rule?

Answer

Yes, the extra syllable is there. Like most such changes, it happens in order to simplify the pronunciation. The English long/tense vowels are diphthongs -- they end in a glide -y or -w, so when a diphthong is followed by a -l or -r in the same syllable, you're left with syllables ending in -yl, -wl, -yr, -wr, which are hard to pronounce.

In my speech, which is a Midwestern variety of Standard English, what happens to simplify the pronunciation is that either the -l or -r becomes syllabic, so you get an extra syllable (as you've observed), or else the glide -y or -w drops out, and you're left with a simple vowel preceding the -l or -r instead of a diphthong.

Personally, I make the -l syllabic in your example "real": [ɹɪjl] ==> [ɹɪj.l̩], but in "rear", instead the glide is dropped: [ɹɪjɹ] ==> [ɹɪɹ]. However, I believe syllabifying the -r and leaving the glide is also common.

I also drop the glide, making the preceding vowel a monophthong in your examples "beer", "care", and "lair", but again, I think the two syllable pronunciations are common.

punctuation - Are commas considered superfluous in legal documents?

I'm in the process of purchasing a house and reading through the contract, I can't find a single instance of the comma. (As if legalese wasn't hard enough to read already!)

This includes the segregation of sentence clauses, separating lists, following certain leading adverbs (however, therefore, etc.), etc.

Are commas considered superfluous in legal documents? Perhaps just property documents?

Answer

Commas are regarded as dangerous in legal documents - they introduce ambiguity in the meaning.

"The agreement shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five year terms , unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.” https://secure.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/RTGAM/20060806/wr-rogers07

The court decided that the second comma meant the 5year period was an optional clause. The customer was able to change the term after one year and it cost Rogers telecom a couple of million $$$