The normal speed version of the news story
contains ONLY news narration, not dialog.
Translate to:
Pope Francis avoids direct references to Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar speech
In a highly anticipated speech in Myanmar on Tuesday, Pope Francis called for tolerance and “respect for each ethnic group,” but did not directly address the plight of the Rohingya minority. Human rights activists and others are disappointed by the omission, saying that Pope Francis missed a key opportunity to champion the Rohingya’s cause.
Speaking alongside Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s de facto leader, and before military officials and diplomats, the pope said that “the future of Myanmar must be peace… based on respect of the dignity and rights of each member of society.” He also said that religious differences can promote unity and tolerance, rather than division and distrust. Yet he did not mention the Rohingya by name -- seeming to take the advice of church leaders, who had warned that doing so could worsen the situation and put Myanmar’s small Catholic population at risk.
The United Nations, United States and United Kingdom have described Myanmar’s brutal military campaign against the Rohingya Muslims as ethnic cleansing. Since August, more than 620,000 Rohingya have fled to neighboring Bangladesh.
Chris:
Three months ago, Pope Francis spoke out against the persecution of the Rohingya. He even called them “our Rohingya brothers and sisters.” But now -- when it really matters -- he didn’t even address them by name. Jessica, I really expected more from him.
Jessica:
It IS disappointing, Chris. At the same time, I believe it was an agonizing decision for the pope, and that it’s easy for people to criticize...
Chris:
An “agonizing decision,” Jessica? There was only ONE right choice! The Rohingya have been driven out of their homes. They’ve had their villages burned and seen their family members murdered. And Pope Francis -- one of the world’s most respected moral authorities -- doesn’t acknowledge it? I just don’t understand.
Jessica:
He must have truly believed it would make matters worse. Before his visit, a militant group threatened more violence against the Rohingya if the pope directly mentioned them. The pope has proven in the past that he isn’t afraid to speak out against injustice. And no one knows what he said to Suu Kyi in private...
Chris:
There’s no excuse, Jessica. Making a public statement would have shown Suu Kyi and the rest of Myanmar that the world is watching. Private conversations don’t have that effect.
Jessica:
I’m not saying he made the right decision, Chris. Only that it must have been difficult. Maybe, in time, he will apologize for not having been more direct. Remember that last March, he asked the Rwandan president for forgiveness over the Catholic Church’s silence during the genocide there...
Chris:
The Rwandan genocide was over 20 years ago! The Rohingya people can’t wait. By not mentioning the crisis publicly and directly, I fear that the pope is allowing the violence to continue.
The normal speed version of the news story
contains ONLY news narration, not dialog.
Translate to:
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announce engagement
Prince Harry, a grandson of Queen Elizabeth II and fifth in line to the British throne, is engaged to American actress Meghan Markle, the royal family announced on Monday. The prince, 33, and Markle, 36, will marry in the spring, according to a statement.
The prince and his fiancée met through mutual friends in July 2016. Like Harry, Markle is heavily involved in charitable causes, including advocacy for women’s rights and clean water in impoverished communities. Markle is biracial -- the daughter of an African American mother and a white father -- and divorced, having ended her first marriage to an American film producer in 2013. She will be baptized into the Church of England and become a British citizen before the wedding.
The ceremony will happen at St. George's Chapel in Windsor Castle next May, though a specific date has not been set. The couple will live at Nottingham Cottage on the grounds of Kensington Palace, and is expected to be known as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex after the wedding.
Chris:
Remember the movie “The King’s Speech,” Jessica? Edward VIII was forbidden to marry his divorced American girlfriend and remain king, so he gave up the throne. Times have certainly changed for the royals!
Jessica:
Yes, they have. Even just a few decades ago, the idea of a prince marrying someone who is divorced, American, and biracial would have been completely unimaginable.
Chris:
It’s good to see that the royal family will look a little bit more like ordinary people. But my question is: What difference will it really make for Britain?
Jessica:
What do you mean?
Chris:
Around twice as many black people in Britain are unemployed compared to white people. Not only that, the average black college graduate earns almost a quarter less than the average white non-college educated worker. And black people in Britain are NINE TIMES as likely to be in prison than white people! That’s a bigger imbalance than here in the United States!
Jessica:
How do you know all this?
Chris:
I read it! I got curious after I heard about the royal engagement. So many people have been saying what a big change it will be to have someone of mixed race in the royal family. So I started to wonder what things are like for ordinary Brits.
Jessica:
It’s true that this wedding won’t change things overnight. But having someone like Meghan Markle in such a prominent position could be a start, right?
Chris:
Of course. I would just like to see the royals bring more attention to inequality in their society. There’s no denying that they do a lot of good work around the world. But it would be great to see this new royal couple become a strong voice for change at home.
The normal speed version of the news story
contains ONLY news narration, not dialog.
Translate to:
Changes in Earth’s rotation may cause more major earthquakes in 2018
A slowing of the Earth’s rotation could lead to an increase in devastating earthquakes next year, according to two U.S. geologists, Roger Bilham and Rebecca Bendick. Last month, the scientists presented a model at the annual meeting of the U.S. Geological Society that predicts that 2018 will be a year of higher earthquake activity due to a slight deceleration in the Earth’s rotation.
The scientists studied earthquakes of 7.0 magnitude or higher that have struck since 1900. They found five periods in which there were significantly higher numbers of large earthquakes. In these five periods, there were 25 to 30 intense earthquakes a year, compared with the overall average number, which is around 15. After considering several factors that could explain these fluctuations, such as changes in ocean circulation patterns, the researchers found that only changes in the Earth’s rotation speed correlated with increases in major earthquakes.
The scientists believe that slower rotation speeds could trigger changes in the Earth’s core which, in turn, result in more intense earthquakes. While they can’t predict where next year’s earthquakes will strike, they believe regions near the equator may be particularly vulnerable.
Chris:
This is an interesting theory, Jessica. It certainly makes more sense than other ways that people have tried to predict earthquakes…
Jessica:
Like what?
Chris:
Like, looking at how animals behave...
Jessica:
...how animals behave?
Chris:
Yes. For hundreds, or even thousands of years, people have said that animals like rats, weasels, and snakes leave their homes before earthquakes to try to find a safer place. But there’s no real evidence showing that that happens.
Jessica:
Interesting! Well, maybe this new theory will turn out to be more accurate. I suppose we’ll know a year from now...
Chris:
The problem is that the prediction could make a lot of people nervous in the meantime. Since the researchers have no way of knowing where the earthquakes will strike or what their magnitudes will be, everyone who lives in a place that often gets earthquakes may feel vulnerable, maybe unnecessarily.
Jessica:
So… do you think the prediction shouldn’t have been publicized?
Chris:
No, I don’t mean that. But the articles should include information about what people should do if an earthquake strikes.
Jessica:
That’s not the journalists’ responsibility, Chris. But maybe knowing about this prediction will motivate officials in places that are prone to earthquakes to help people prepare.
The normal speed version of the news story
contains ONLY news narration, not dialog.
Translate to:
Man plans to launch himself in homemade rocket to prove that the Earth is flat
A California man hopes to catapult himself above the earth in a rocket he constructed from scrap metal, the first step in an ambitious program to prove that the planet is flat.
Mike Hughes, 61, a limousine driver from Apple Valley, California, eventually hopes to fly several miles above the Earth and photograph it. He says his photos will prove that the Earth is not round, but in fact, a flat disc. Hughes had planned to launch his steam-powered rocket last Saturday, but had to postpone it because he did not secure the required permits. He hopes to carry out the launch this week.
Hughes built his first rocket in 2014, and managed to fly it a quarter of a mile over the desert before it crashed. To raise funds for his latest rocket, he appealed to an online flat-Earth community for help, saying he shared their beliefs. In an interview with the Associated Press, he said: "I don't believe in science. I know about aerodynamics and fluid dynamics and how things move through the air ... but that's not science, that's just a formula.”
On Friday, Hughes announced that he has had to postpone his planned launch for the time being. Hughes said he was unable to obtain the required permits to launch on public land, but now plans for it to take place sometime in the next few days on private property.
Chris:
Groundbreaking project! Good luck to you, Mr. Hughes!
Jessica:
It makes no sense, Chris! How does someone who doesn’t believe in science build a rocket that depends on scientific principles to function? And how does he explain the photos of Earth that have been taken from space – that clearly show that it’s round?
Chris:
He questions everything!
Jessica:
Apparently he does… He has said that these images of the Earth are fake -- just computer animation. He’s also called astronauts “paid actors...”
Chris:
See?!
Jessica:
I don’t believe it for one minute. This MUST be a publicity stunt… or it could be that he said he believed the Earth is flat just to raise money for the rocket. Apparently, he tried raising money two years ago, before his flat-Earth “conversion…” and he didn’t raise much of anything.
You know... the biggest traitor the United States has ever known?
Jessica:
Uh, huh… What’s your point exactly?
Chris:
I’ve been wondering about him lately. His motivations to be more exact. How does a general in the American Continental Army, who was, by all accounts, a very brave and honorable man, decide to commit treason?
Jessica:
Well, my knowledge of his role in the Revolutionary War against the British is pretty basic, but I do remember a few key facts: He was a proud man, and believed that his contributions to the cause were not properly recognized. His impulsiveness was legendary. And, most important of all, he was nearly bankrupt and the British paid very handsomely for his services.
Chris:
Including their offer of £20,000 for surrendering West Point, a fortification that was under his command! I mean, don’t you find that incredible?
Jessica:
Pretty dishonorable if you ask me… I guess that’s why he’s such a famous traitor.
Chris:
I think there’s more to the story.
Jessica:
Really? What’s your theory?
Chris:
As the French say, Cherchez la femme – Look for the woman!
Jessica:
Huh?
Chris:
Peggy Shippen Arnold, his second wife. Nobody seems to even consider whether she played any part in her husband’s treasonous plot.
Jessica:
I’ve never even heard of her...
Chris:
That’s exactly my point! I read about her recently, and I must say that the circumstances of their relationship were suspicious.
Jessica:
I’m intrigued! Tell me more.
Chris:
In 1778, at the age of 37, Benedict Arnold meets and falls in love with a gorgeous 18-year-old girl called Peggy Shippen.
Jessica:
I’m sure it’s not just their age difference that was suspect.
Chris:
That was actually pretty normal at the time, but her father was loyal to the British – a known loyalist!
Jessica:
That can’t be good...
Chris:
That’s not all! Before she even met the handsome Benedict, she had social ties to a spy, Major John André, the man who would later become Arnold’s liaison to the British.
Jessica:
So, your theory is that Peggy Shippen conspired with John André to turn Arnold into a British spy? That the marriage was part of the plan? That sounds like a cock and bull story if I ever heard one.
Chris:
Maybe. Maybe not. All I know is that soon after their wedding, Arnold began to give valuable information to André. What’s more, his wife started acting as the intermediary between them.
Jessica:
In your version of the story, Peggy Shippen was a seductress and the idea for treason was hers, not his?
Chris:
Perhaps, it could have been her father or John André who masterminded the whole thing, but there’s no denying that she played an active role.
Jessica:
Whatever the case, it was his name, not hers, which became a synonym for traitor in the US. In 1780, André was caught with damning evidence in his boot and was executed. Arnold, on the other hand, fled to England.
Chris:
Where he was later joined by his wife, and they lived out their lives in exile.
Jessica:
It seems crazy to me that a smart, respected general could have been manipulated so easily by a teenager, no matter how gorgeous she was.
Chris:
That’s why it was the perfect cover, Jessica! Remember the old saying: Cherchez la femme.
Jessica:
Look for the woman!
Like personal pronouns, possessive pronouns replace a person or group of people. However, unlike personal pronouns, possessive pronouns also show ownership.
I. Possessive Pronouns With Nouns
The following possessive pronouns are used with a noun to show ownership: my, your, our, his, her, its, their.
My car is at the mechanic getting fixed. ‘My’ is followed by the noun ‘car’.
Alan and I moved last weekend. Our new apartment is really nice! ‘Our’ is followed by the noun ‘apartment’.
II. Possessive Pronouns Without Nouns
These possessive pronouns are used without a noun: mine, ours, yours, his, hers, its, theirs.
The blue car in the back of the parking lot is mine. ‘Mine’ is not followed by a noun.
There are two apartments on the fifth floor. Ours is the last one on the left. ‘Ours’ is not followed by a noun.
III. Possessive Pronouns With Gerunds
A gerund is a verb form that ends in -ing and functions as a noun. Because of this, the preceding possessive noun should be: my, our, your, his, her, its, their.
I love hearing her singing. ✔ Correct
I love hearing hers singing. ✘ Not correct
I couldn’t take their complaining anymore. ✔ Correct
I couldn’t take theirs complaining anymore. ✘ Not correct
I recently had some friends visit me from abroad and I realized that tipping in the US can be a confusing topic.
Chris:
How so?
Jessica:
What many tourists don’t realize is that many servers make most of their income from tips rather than wages. Although each of the 50 states can set their own minimum wage, under federal law, the minimum wage for tipped employees is just $2.13 per hour! So, to make a long story short, your tips could be making up for their very low pay.
Chris:
Oh, believe me, I know all about that! I worked as a waiter in a small Italian restaurant when I was in college. The tips I received from customers made up the biggest portion of my pay! To make a long story short, I know how hard a server’s job can be and how much they rely on tipping.
Jessica:
So, nowadays, as a customer, how much do you usually tip? 15% of the total bill?
Chris:
15% is OK. Most people pay around 20% though. I know it sounds like a lot for people who come to our country, but that’s the way it is. It’s actually very rude not to tip well.
Jessica:
Yes, it’s rude, but it is not required.
Chris:
No, it’s not required. Just like you aren’t required to hold the door open for an elderly person or offer a beverage to a thirsty house guest. You don’t have to do these things. Most of us do it anyway because we’re civilized and decent. You don’t have to be civilized and decent.
Jessica:
Good point! Tell me, when you were waiting tables, did you notice any correlation between the satisfaction of your customers and the tip size?
Chris:
Frankly, not much. My theory is that there are people who consistently tip well and there are people who don’t, even if they’re very satisfied.
Jessica:
Actually there are studies to support your theory! They suggest that the connection between service quality and tip size is not strong at all. An analysis of 14 different studies found that, indeed, tips did increase with the perceived quality of service, however the relationship was weak enough to raise doubts about the use of tips to motivate servers, measure server performance, or identify dissatisfied customers.
Chris:
Sounds about right!
Jessica:
So, Chris, you say you are a phenomenal tipper, eh?
Chris:
Yeah, I always leave at least 20% as a tip.
Jessica:
Sorry to rain on your parade but that’s not so phenomenal.
Chris:
What?! What’s your definition of a “phenomenal tip?”
Jessica:
A few years ago a waitress at a Waffle House in North Carolina received a $1000 tip.
Chris:
Wow!
Jessica:
Here’s another story. In Rhode Island, a single mom of three was having a hard time providing for her family while working at a pizza place. One day, a couple paid their $42 bill by leaving $500 on the table! At first, the waitress thought they had made a mistake, so she tried to give back the money but the couple assured her that the $458 tip was no mistake.
Chris:
Amazing! That is phenomenal tipping! But they set an impossible standard. I can’t tip like that!
Jessica:
And nobody expects you to, Chris, but there are some people out there who can… and do. To make a long story short, while it’s not uncommon to hear about generous people leaving lavish tips, don’t worry – your 20% tip is certainly much appreciated.
Let’s get to the point… To make a long story short means precisely that: getting to the point of a story or anecdote, quickly. This expression is most often used right before someone abbreviates a story that would otherwise take much longer to tell. Here is one common way to use the phrase: A person begins telling a story, they say “to make a long story short,” and then jump to the conclusion of that story.
This expression works best when the details which are skipped or abbreviated can be easily inferred by the listener, meaning that they are predictable. It also works when the conclusion provides an overall understanding, so that the information which was omitted from the story is rendered unnecessary.
In England, the phrase used is to cut a long story short, rather than “make.” All over the English speaking world, the abbreviated “long story short” is also common.
As for the origin… The notion of abbreviating long stories is ancient and idioms which express this notion exist in languages all over the world but, to make a long story short, this precise phrase has been used since at least the 1800s. The exact origin is unclear.
Example 1:
First he tried to feed cotton candy to the giraffes. Then he tried to climb into the gorilla enclosure! To make a long story short, we are banned from the zoo for the rest of the year.
Example 2:
I ran out of gas, my phone died, and I was totally lost but – long story short – here I am!
Example 3: INCORRECT USE - Not enough information/unclear correlation
It started raining this morning and, to make a long story short, the pizza is not ready yet.
Let's practice pronunciation on few short phrases from today's episode.
Listen carefully how the native speaker pronounces each sentence.
Follow the intonations in each sentence. When you are ready, record one
paragraph at a time with your own voice and then compare
your pronunciation and intonations to the native speaker's: