magamo Wrote:1. native Japanese speakers don't consider they're different.

2. that Japanese ears consider [h], [ç], and [ɸ] are the same

3. I think that's because his ear considers "ve" a grammatically voiced "he."

Hi Magamo,

First, I just want to say, your post was certainly interesting. I don't hear any difference between the sounds you said were different but native English speakers think are the same, either. Hmm... I'll have to pay more attention to it.

Can I give you a tip?

These should be

1. Native Japanese speakers don't consider them to be different

2. that Japanese ears consider ... to be the same (sorry I don't know how to type those symbols)

3. I think that's because his ear considers "ve" to be a grammatically voiced "he"

Just FYI. Hope it helps.

Ok, I see what you are saying. I can see this is something that a teacher may need to check that Japanese students understand. However, there is no such thing as grammatically voiced. There may be rules as to why は becomes ば and ぱ, but they are unique to Japanese and unrelated to the concept of voicing which is not tied to any one language. If your larynx is vibrating then you are voicing, otherwise you aren't.

If this concept is learnt correctly then I think it is useful to say F and V are made with almost exactly the same same shape of mouth because this is true. I would also encourage students to use concepts like this and explanations of how to hold their mouths as starting points. They should eventually naturally adapt and pronounce correctly with enough input as long as they aren't trying to manually control their mouths too much.

I think the best way is to gain an understanding of the mechanics behind the sounds, that is what the tongue, lips and voicebox are doing.

f = top of lower lip contacts bottom of upper teeth. Air is pushed out.
v = same but voiced (ie. the difference in sounds originates in the voicebox)

p = lips close. air is pushed out while simultaneously opening the lips (I believe these kinds of sounds are referred to as plosive).
b = same but voiced. (again the difference in sounds originates in the voicebox)

th = tongue should come in contact with the bottom of of the upper front teeth, and then seperate when air is pushed out. I believe this classifies it as a dental plosive. Often Japanese speakers pronounce it as a z instead. the th sound is generally katakanarized as a z

t = Also a dental plosive, but tongue contacts the back of the upper front teeth.
d = same but voiced.

s = similar to th, but tongue tip is placed behind upper front teeth, but with a gap to let air through. Often pronounced as sh by japanese speakers leading to such hilarious examples as the 不動産屋　シティホーム　or as I like to call it shitty home.
z = same but voiced.

sh = similar to s but the tongue moves further up and back towards the roof of the mouth is sort of flattened.

I think a big problem for Japanese students is that they aren't necessarily aware they are pronouncing things wrong, because they get more exposure to incorrectly pronounced English than correctly pronounced English. This stems from the teachers' often poor pronunciation, the huge number of katakanarized English loan words and the rather output centric system of English education.

thermal Wrote:Ok, I see what you are saying. I can see this is something that a teacher may need to check that Japanese students understand. However, there is no such thing as grammatically voiced. There may be rules as to why は becomes ば and ぱ, but they are unique to Japanese and unrelated to the concept of voicing which is not tied to any one language. If your larynx is vibrating then you are voicing, otherwise you aren't.

If this concept is learnt correctly then I think it is useful to say F and V are made with almost exactly the same same shape of mouth because this is true. I would also encourage students to use concepts like this and explanations of how to hold their mouths as starting points. They should eventually naturally adapt and pronounce correctly with enough input as long as they aren't trying to manually control their mouths too much.

Ah, by "grammatically voiced," I meant "Japanese-grammatically voiced." Of course, it's not universal because the reason why は can sift to ば is that は was /p/ in classical Japanese long time ago.

I think you can teach your Japanese students how to pronounce "f" and "v" by explaining muscle movements and whatnot. But when we use the sounds in a sentence (or a word depending on their fluency), it seems to me that our unconscious minds are so used to Japanese grammar and its sound system that our brains tend to regard "v" as a voiced "p" when it's natural to our linguistic intuition. So my conscious mind might be able to see "v" as a voiced "f", but my brain may not work accordingly. If my unconscious mind treats "v" according to the Japanese grammar and sound system, of course I end up switching around "v" and "b" here and there.

So it doesn't seem that knowing how to produce the sounds alone helps much because the speaker's unconscious mind might recognize "v" as a voiced "p", which is "b" in English. If I am not totally wrong on this, the fact that students can produce/hear "v" doesn't always mean their brains are treating the phoneme as a voiced "f". Hence, the fact that a speaker's conscious mind sees "v" as a voiced "f" doesn't necessarily mean his or her brain treats it that way when speaking and listening to his or her second language.

Of course it is useful to say F and V are made with almost exactly the same shape of mouth. But if teachers don't teach what is going on in students' unconscious minds, I think it could be very confusing.

If I understand the subject correctly, the problem we are addressing is that the student in question has a good command of English but fails to produce correct sounds. If my guess is not completely wrong, this is a sign that her unconscious mind still sees English phonemes as Japanese sounds. My point is that teaching how and when to produce each phoneme doesn't solve this problem, though it IS necessary if she doesn't know it.

It's like teaching how to send an email on Windows step-by-step doesn't help a lot for Mac users. The instruction should include the differences between OSes and mail clients. Sometimes it's necessary to install Windows to get a complicated job done. I think what AJATT/AEATT is basically doing is installing a new OS into your head. If the OS of your student's brain is still Japanese, it stands to reason that voiced/unvoiced things don't work like English... I think. I understand your Japanese is excellent. Can you use Japanese allophones properly? If so, are you doing it intuitively? If that's the case, I think you already installed the Japanese into your brain as an OS. If still English rules governs your pronunciation, I think deep down your brain is (probably unconsciously) using English. I'm not sure if an adult person can re-install a new OS to this degree.

@thistime
Thanks. I'm glad you find my post interesting. And thanks for the grammar tips! I think this thread is kind of related to Japanese students, so probably it's ok to correct other posters' English. But I also think this is a place for learners of the Japanese language, so I'm not sure if ファブリス considers it to be fine. I do appreciate it though. If anything, I love Grammar Nazi!

As for the usage of "consider," I usually use the word like this:

1. I consider this very interesting. (when the noun and the adjective part are relatively short)

2. I consider this shit as crap. (I don't know why, but when I am speaking carelessly, sometimes "as" gets in, especially in an informal situation)

3. I consider that this usage of the word "consider" is not necessarily wrong in certain situations. (when a relatively long clause is attached)

4. I consider grammar to be useless per se. (when I pretend to be intelligent)

5. I consider grammar to be a valuable tool. (I also use this structure for a noun-noun case when I have to hide my stupidity)

6. I consider this is good. (when I speak/write a sentence while thinking something a little complected. In my mind, it's like, "I consider..., um, (actually considering something) you know, this is good. Probably this is grammatically wrong, but since usually I'm thinking something when I use this word, I always get tripped up.)

Apparently I make a bunch of grammatical errors in my posts. If the administrator allows us to correct non-native speakers' English, I'm grateful if you and other posters help me improve my English. Actually I didn't know structure 6 is considered wrong on an internet forum; I often come across this kind of sentence structure.

nadiatims Wrote:th = tongue should come in contact with the bottom of of the upper front teeth, and then seperate when air is pushed out. I believe this classifies it as a dental plosive. Often Japanese speakers pronounce it as a z instead. the th sound is generally katakanarized as a z

According to this article on Wikipedia, it seems voiced and unvoiced "th"s are different in some way:

Wikipedia Wrote:The difference between /θ/ and /ð/ is normally described as a voiceless-voiced contrast, as this is the aspect native speakers are most aware of. However, the two phonemes are also distinguished by other phonetic markers. There is a difference of energy (see: Fortis and lenis), the fortis /θ/ being pronounced with more muscular tension than the lenis /ð/. Also, /θ/ is more strongly aspirated than /ð/, as can be demonstrated by holding a hand a few centimeters in front of the mouth and noticing the differing force of the puff of air created by the articulatory process.

Do native speakers in this thread notice these differences? I don't think these are obstacles to Japanese learners because Japanese grammar doesn't seem to get in the way this time, but it might be interesting.

Usages 2 and 6 flag my "ack no!" reaction. Replacing as/is with 'to be' gets rid of the flag. Dropping as/is entirely should, also, normally, but for some reason those two examples sound a little weird to me that way. I may just be paying too much attention; example 1 doesn't seem odd and it's the same thing.

You don't have a lot of grammatical errors in your posts, though. Or rather, not many I bother to notice, putting them in the category of 'stuff natives don't freak over'. The only things that hit me in your recent posts were what thistime pointed out, and the use of 'voiceness,' which isn't a word, and which would be best substituted with, alternatingly, 'voice' or 'voicing'.

thistime Wrote:

magamo Wrote:1. native Japanese speakers don't consider they're different.

2. that Japanese ears consider [h], [ç], and [ɸ] are the same

3. I think that's because his ear considers "ve" a grammatically voiced "he."

Hi Magamo,

First, I just want to say, your post was certainly interesting. I don't hear any difference between the sounds you said were different but native English speakers think are the same, either. Hmm... I'll have to pay more attention to it.

Can I give you a tip?

These should be

1. Native Japanese speakers don't consider them to be different

2. that Japanese ears consider ... to be the same (sorry I don't know how to type those symbols)

3. I think that's because his ear considers "ve" to be a grammatically voiced "he"

Just FYI. Hope it helps.

While I don't know the actual grammar rules in this situation, I think number 3 was fine as it was. Actually, "to be" doesn't seem necessary in any of those three sentences, to me. In the first two, the sentences probably sound more natural with "to be," but in the third sentence I don't think it makes a difference either way.

....But who knows, maybe it's a speech vs. writing thing, maybe it's regional....or maybe it's just me


Edit: Going with what QuackingShoe said, I think number 2 doesn't need "to be," but number 6 does. But don't ask me why.

No, Magamo used correct grammar. If you inserted 'that' into those sentences, they'd be perfectly correct. His omission of 'that' is simply colloquial writing. In the other instances, it's simply less natural sounding due to the other variants of expressing the same idea being far more common, but gramatically speaking it's still logical and correct as far as I know.

And yes, I know English isn't my native language, but I do know what I am talking about from time to time

Which sentences would inserting "that" make correct? There were a lot of sentences being discussed

Aijin Wrote:No, Magamo used correct grammar. If you inserted 'that' into those sentences, they'd be perfectly correct. His omission of 'that' is simply colloquial writing. In the other instances, it's simply less natural sounding due to the other variants of expressing the same idea being far more common, but gramatically speaking it's still logical and correct as far as I know.

And yes, I know English isn't my native language, but I do know what I am talking about from time to time

Here's from Merriam-Webster
1: to think about carefully: as a: to think of especially with regard to taking some action <is considering you for the job> <considered moving to the city> b: to take into account <defendant's age must be considered>
2: to regard or treat in an attentive or kindly way <he considered her every wish>
3: to gaze on steadily or reflectively
4: to come to judge or classify <consider thrift essential>
5: regard <his works are well considered abroad>
6: suppose
intransitive verb
: reflect, deliberate <paused a moment to consider>

And from the Free Dictionary
1. To think carefully about.
2. To think or deem to be; regard as. See Usage Note at as1.
3. To form an opinion about; judge: considers waste to be criminal.
4. To take into account; bear in mind: Her success is not surprising if you consider her excellent training.
5. To show consideration for: failed to consider the feelings of others.
6. To esteem; regard.
7. To look at thoughtfully.
v.intr.
To think carefully; reflect: Give me time to consider.

And from Dictionary.com
1. to think carefully about, esp. in order to make a decision; contemplate; reflect on: He considered the cost before buying the new car.
2. to regard as or deem to be: I consider the story improbable.
3. to think, believe, or suppose: We consider his reply unsatisfactory.
4. to bear in mind; make allowance for: The arrest was justified if you consider his disorderly behavior.
5. to pay attention to; regard: He considered the man for some time before speaking to him.
6. to regard with respect, thoughtfulness, honor, etc.; esteem.
7. to think about (something that one might do, accept, buy, etc.): to consider a job in Guatemala.
8. Obsolete. to view attentively; scrutinize.
9. Obsolete. to recompense or remunerate.

–verb (used without object) 10. to think deliberately or carefully; reflect.
11. to view carefully or thoughtfully.

Synonyms:
1. ponder, deliberate, weigh.

Here are all of the example sentences given put together;
<is considering you for the job>
<considered moving to the city>
<defendant's age must be considered>
<he considered her every wish>
<consider thrift essential>
<his works are well considered abroad>
<paused a moment to consider>
considers waste to be criminal.
Her success is not surprising if you consider her excellent training.
failed to consider the feelings of others.
Give me time to consider
He considered the cost before buying the new car.
I consider the story improbable.
We consider his reply unsatisfactory.
The arrest was justified if you consider his disorderly behavior.
He considered the man for some time before speaking to him.
to consider a job in Guatemala.

None of the examples use "consider something is".

I am FAR from an English grammar expert and I am sure that your knowledge of English grammar surpasses mine. It may just be my style, but...

And Magamo,

Your English certainly isn't bad otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. If I felt you were satisfied with getting the message across then I wouldn't have said anything, but you seem to hold yourself to a high standard and care about making your English as close to native as possible so I brought it up.

And sorry to derail the thread

Which sentence in specific are you talking about of his where 'consider' is used incorrectly?

magamo Wrote:It's like teaching how to send an email on Windows step-by-step doesn't help a lot for Mac users. The instruction should include the differences between OSes and mail clients. Sometimes it's necessary to install Windows to get a complicated job done. I think what AJATT/AEATT is basically doing is installing a new OS into your head. If the OS of your student's brain is still Japanese, it stands to reason that voiced/unvoiced things don't work like English... I think. I understand your Japanese is excellent. Can you use Japanese allophones properly? If so, are you doing it intuitively? If that's the case, I think you already installed the Japanese into your brain as an OS. If still English rules governs your pronunciation, I think deep down your brain is (probably unconsciously) using English. I'm not sure if an adult person can re-install a new OS to this degree.

Interesting, I hadn't really thought about this before. When I was teaching English I generally got around this by showing them F and V myself. I would go vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv and get everyone to do this with me, then go vvvvviolin. I would do the same with f and hiss and splutter air with no sound, ffffffffffffffffffind.

I think I am close to using Japanese allophones correctly. I still need a lot more input and speaking practice if I want to be perfect though.

People definitely can be perfect, or at least as good as a native speaker. I have met Japanese speakers of English who were so good I thought they may have grown up in an English speaking country. I asked them how they go so good, and they say "I don't know.". One said "I just copied people around me".

On the other hand I read emails of a 60 year old Japanese man who had been in America for 40 years and had forgotten Japanese. Yours and Aijin's English is clearly better, so I think there are ways to screw up learning a second language. Too much grammar and control of what you do causes this I think.

Aijin Wrote:No, Magamo used correct grammar. If you inserted 'that' into those sentences, they'd be perfectly correct. His omission of 'that' is simply colloquial writing. In the other instances, it's simply less natural sounding due to the other variants of expressing the same idea being far more common, but gramatically speaking it's still logical and correct as far as I know.

And yes, I know English isn't my native language, but I do know what I am talking about from time to time

Not sure which sentences you're talking about either, because, for example, "native Japanese speakers don't consider that they're different" sounds really bad in the context it was being used in. In other contexts that sort of construction would make sense, but it doesn't here.

I think Magamo may be using consider as a synonym of think. I think the main uses of consider are "contemplate", "regard" and "take into account".

"I think Japan is a country in Asia." (but I'm not sure), is a fine sentence.
But "I consider Japan is a country in Asia", sounds wrong to me.

"I think Japan is a beautiful country."(this is my opinion)
is fine as is "I consider Japan to be a beautiful country." (I regard it in this way)
and "Japan is a beautiful country considering how urbanized it is" (taking into account the fact that it is urban, it is still beautiful)

But, "I consider Japan is a beautiful country", again, sounds wrong to me.

I will consider your offer to visit you in Japan. -or- I will consider visiting you in Japan. (I will contemplate it) Fine.
I will think about your offer to visit you in Japan. Fine
I was surprised you invited me to visit you in Japan considering the fight we had. (Taking into account the fact that we fought). Fine

I consider his Japanese to be excellent. (I regard it in this way) Fine
I think his Japanese is excellent. (It is my opinion) Fine
He is considered an excellent Japanese speaker. (He is regarded by others in this way) Fine
I considered hiring him for the position because of his excellent Japanese (I contemplated it) Fine
His Japanese is excellent considering he has only been studying for a year (Taking into account the fact) Fine

I consider his Japanese is excellent. Incorrect imo

I consider him to be a good candidate for the job. (I regard him in this way) Fine
I think he is a good candidate for the job. (It is my opinion) Fine
He is a good candidate for the job considering his skills and experience. (taking into account) Fine
I considered all candidates carefully. (I contemplated) Fine

I consider he is a good candidate for the job. Incorrect imo

I'd recommend this MIT lesson on speaking and writing.

total of 4 lessons, 1h each.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=...g+speaking

Is really good to get an idea of how to analyze a language, however, I won't recommend taking it seriously. Just take a shot, and see if something there makes sense to you or her.

andresito Wrote:I'd recommend this MIT lesson on speaking and writing.

total of 4 lessons, 1h each.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=...g+speaking

Is really good to get an idea of how to analyze a language, however, I won't recommend taking it seriously. Just take a shot, and see if something there makes sense to you or her.

Is there something like that for other languages? Seems fun.

Yes, that's what I was talking about. Those sentences are gramatically correct as far as I know, 'that' is just dropped from them, which is a common omission as far as my experience leads me to believe.

If you use the variation of "take into consideration" in place, perhaps you'll see the reason that both forms are logical.

"I took into consideration that she speaks Japanese"
"I considered that she speaks Japanese"

'that' is gramatically correct because it's being used as the subject of a relative clause.


Think of it this way: when 'that' is used as a preposition's object, and the preposition is situated at the end of the clause, it can be taken out of the sentence with the sentence still possessing the same grammatical correctness and sense.

"the book that I read"
"the book I read"

Same thing applies when you use it as the subject of a relative clause.

Or, if you replace 'considers' with a synonymous verb, you also get a logical sentence:
"Native Japanese speakers don't think that they're different"
"Native Japanese speakers don't think they're different"
"Native Japanese speakers don't consider that they're different"
"Native Japanese speakers don't consider they're different"

All are correct.

I think the problem that is arising is that quite simply, when you're accustomed to hearing a different construction pattern in language, Broadmann area 44, the inferior lateral cortex becomes activated. This is more or less what produces our sensation of hearing dissonance in language. Even if something is grammatically correct, if it's not a construction that we're most used to, we biologically feel that "wrong" feeling. People who are used to hearing "I'm good" rather than "I'm well" will often feel that same neurological response of something being incorrect, even though it is correct, simply because it's not what their minds are accustomed to, and it contradicts the pattern they're familiar with.

Sorry if this post doesn't make much sense. As I've said before, trying to explain grammar in English is difficult for me.

Aijin Wrote:If you use the variation of "take into consideration" in place, perhaps you'll see the reason that both forms are logical.

"I took into consideration that she speaks Japanese"
"I considered that she speaks Japanese"

Yes, this would be the "take into account" example and I was not saying it is incorrect.

I was simply saying "consider something is" is extremely strange to me.

Aijin Wrote:Or, if you replace 'considers' with a synonymous verb, you also get a logical sentence:
"Native Japanese speakers don't think that they're different"
"Native Japanese speakers don't think they're different"
"Native Japanese speakers don't consider that they're different"
"Native Japanese speakers don't consider they're different"

All are correct.

I still think consider is a synonym of "think about" not "think".
The last two sentences should still be "consider them to be different" in my opinion.
And this is not to say that I think you are wrong. Simply that they sound very unnatural to me. But I fully acknowledge that I could be totally wrong and you could be totally right. You have obviously studied English in a way that I never did so your knowldege goes deeper than mine. All I know is what "sounds" natural.

Aijin Wrote:Even if something is grammatically correct, if it's not a construction that we're most used to, we biologically feel that "wrong" feeling.

This is entirely possible. It's like when someone says "to whom are you speaking?" It may be "more" grammatically correct than "who are you speaking to?" But it just isn't the way anyone actually speaks so it sounds SOO snooty.

What do you think of these sentences:
I consider Japan is a country in Asia
I consider Japan is a beautiful country
I consider his Japanese is excellent
I consider he is a good candidate for the job.
?
Do these sound correct to you?

The sentence is off because the reader/listener is expecting "the fact," or something more fitting.

Until now I haven't seen "consider that" used like this. Save for sentences like "Consider that a warning," using that with consider is just weird. Regardless of how grammatically correct it may or may not be, it shouldn't be used like that.

It just wroooong.

They don't sound correct to me, but that's just because I'm so used to hearing 'that' used in those constructions. There's a huge difference between being grammatical correct and being natural, though. Which is more important is of course a topic for another thread
They sound odd, but they should be correct. I don't have a graduate degree in English though, so of course I could be wrong. I'm no expert.

I think the reason it's unnatural is simply because of the 'is', which isn't often used with 'consider' now adays, while it is with 'think'

"I think his mom is evil" is correct, where as "I think his mom evil" seems awkward
while for consider the reverse is true
"I consider his mom is evil" seems weird, while, "I consider his mom evil" is correct.

Sorry Aijin, but I think you are wrong. The omission of that is called the zero relative clause or pronoun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rel...ve_pronoun

"the book that I read"
"the book I read"

The reason it is allowed (and normal) here is because the subject of the main clause, is different from the subject of the relative clause.

Main clause = There is the book. (subj = book)
Relative clause = I read it. (subj = I)

However, if they are the same.

Main clause = There is the book. (subj = book)
Relative clause = It is green. (subj = it(book))

"There is the book is green." omitting that is ungrammatical.

This is the same case as magamo's sentence, "I said there are three consonants in the は-series, but in reality native Japanese speakers don't consider they're different." The subject of the main clause is "three consonants" and the subject of the relative is "they", which is also the "three consonants" thus it is ungrammatical to omit that here.

It is not a case of it's completely wrong. Just it is fairly wrong.

'consider' is a verb that expects an object and indirect object.
I consider him a good candidate.
in this example, the object is 'a good candidate', and the indirect object is 'him'.
Another example of this syntax is:
He gave her a flower.
The object is 'a flower'. The indirect object is 'her'.
Therefore 'He gave she a flower' is wrong because we use 'she' to define the agent of an action, not the target.
I consider he is a good candidate. ×
I consider him is a good candidate. ×

magamo's examples:
2. I consider this shit as crap. ×
indirect object: this. ◯
object: as crap. ×
6. I consider this is good. ×
indirect object: this. ◯
object: is good. ×　what is the verb 'is' doing there?

Difference between 'consider' and 'think' is that think is not followed by an indirect object.
eg.
I think he is a good candidate. ◯
object: he is a good candidate. ◯

Aijin's examples:
"Native Japanese speakers don't consider that they're different"
"Native Japanese speakers don't consider they're different"

possability 1: (consider requires indirect object)
object: they're different. ◯
indirect object: missing ×

possability 2: (consider doesn't require an indirect object)
The way you're using consider here, it's almost synonomous with think.
object: they're different. ◯
indirect object: unneccesary. ◯

I think in reality the vast majority of people expect to hear an object and indirect object after the word 'consider'. There may be some possability 2 is ok, (i'd have to check a dictionary), but people almost never use it in that way. I'd recommend rephrasing it:
"Native Japanese speakers don't consider them different" ◯
object: different. ◯
indirect object: them. ◯

Aijin Wrote:They don't sound correct to me, but that's just because I'm so used to hearing 'that' used in those constructions.

So
I consider that Japan is a country in Asia
I consider that Japan is a beautiful country
I consider that his Japanese is excellent
I consider that he is a good candidate for the job.

Would be correct to you? I still don't think "that" changes anything. They both sound equally as "wrong" to me. But again, maybe that's just me.

Why would you need to use the objective case for 'consider'? I understand why it sounds unnatural in the other constructions, and I agree, but I'd need some evidence that 'consider' requires the objective cause for it to be grammatically correct (because I am difficult like that)

Fascinating about the zero relative clause, I hadn't known that. Learn something new everyday

Didn't read all the posts, responding to something a little earlier. I wasn't saying that "Japanese speakers don't consider they're different" was ungrammatical, only that it was ungrammatical, or perhaps just the wrong way to express what I believe was trying to be expressed, in that particular instance.

"I said there are three consonants in the は-series, but in reality native Japanese speakers don't consider they're different" sounds like one's saying they don't sit around contemplating the ways that they're different. That's true, and grammatically correct, but it didn't seem to fit the flow of thought at all. It's more something you'd use like this: "When I made my plans, I didn't consider (factor in) that the two roads were so different (and now I'm paying the consequences of that)." Actually, it's hard to think of examples that sound natural without basing them around some kind of time expression.
(Following, "I consider that he is a good candidate for the job" makes sense if it's followed by "as I make my decision on whether or not to hire him," though it's odd to be speaking in the present like that. However, it ONLY makes sense in a construction like that, and on it's own appears very ungrammatical because we automatically think of something else. "I consider (remember?) that Japan is a country in Asia" works before "as I try to locate it on the map." "I consider his mom evil" also sounds horrible to me without further elaboration, but not as bad as if it had 'is' or 'as'.)

Instead, I read it as a mistake on "I said there are three consonants in the は-series, but in reality native Japanese speakers don't consider them to be different (even though they are)."
Because that's what I was expecting. It's what makes sense, and flows with the thought being made, and so the mind jars when it sees what was put there instead, and it appears ungrammatical - whether one would actually call it ungrammatical or simply a poor choice of phrase. Especially since saying things like "I consider it is bad" when someone MEANS "I consider it to be bad" is a very common foreign mistake (a red flag, actually, like misuse of articles, because it's one of those things natives simply never do).