[tied] Re: crows and the glottalic theory

From: ikpeylough
Message: 16658
Date: 2002-11-10

--- In cybalist@..., "Patrick C. Ryan" <proto-language@...> wrote:
> From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
> To: <cybalist@...>
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 4:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: crows and the glottalic theory
> > On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:21:06 -0600, "Patrick C. Ryan"
> > <proto-language@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Speaking only for American English, of which I am a native
> > > speaker, both initial and final /d/ are voiced in all dialects
> > > known to me.
> > >
> > > Where did you get such information?
> {MCV}
> > It's a well known fact (it applies of course not only to /d/, but
> > to /b/ and /g/ as well), and you can easily verify this for
> > yourself.

As another native speaker of American English, I'd like to add my 2
cents ...

I double checked (including using MCV's procedure, next post) myself,
and I'm certain that full voicing consistently occurs before the
_release_ of occlusion. After voiceless consonants, voicing tends to
begin immediately before the _start_ of occlusion, even. Of course,
when sentence-initial, the sequence of start of voicing and start of
occlusion is irrelevent.

Perhaps I'm in the minority.

> {PCR}
> Dear Miguel:
> I do not believe it is a well-known "fact". And, after your
> original assertion, I was unable to verify it easily or uneasily.
> {MCV}
> > During the closure of /b/, /d/, /g/ in absolute initial or
> > absolute final position (i.e. when preceded or followed by
> > voicelessness), there is no vibration of the vocal chords at all.
> {PCR}
> In the dialect of American English (Midwestern) which I speak, and
> the "standard" English of broadcast, and in the dialect of Araknsas
> where I presently reside, this is simply and unequivocally untrue.
> An initial voiced stop (/b, d, g/) is pronounced as a sequence of
> voice (vibration) preceding the occlusion.
> In final position, a voiced stop (/b, d, g/) is realized in two
> different ways: 1) in casual speech, voice (vibration) again
> precedes the occlusion which has the effect of of seeming to
> lengthen the vowel; in deliberate or emphatic speech, the voiced
> stop is followed by voice.
> {MCV}
> > In initial
> > position, the difference between /dV-/ and /tV-/ is of voice onset
> > time: for /dV-/, voicing (vocal chord vibrations) starts
> > immediately after the consonant, and the vowel is fully voiced
> > ([tV-]). For /tV-/, the initial part of the vowel is voiceless
> > (/h/), and voicing starts later ([thV-)].
> {PCR}
> I see no great benefit in terming the aspiration (/h/) following an
> initial voiceless stop as a 'voiceless vowel'. Would you then
> consider /h/ ([h]) a voiceless vowel?

Some phoneticists and/or phonologists would do so, or more properly,
call phonetic [h] a voiceless _vocoid_, using _vowel_ strictly as a
phonological term (see Pike's Phonemics, for example).

(One complication is that the puff of breath that is sometimes taught
as demonstrating aspiration isn't directly connected with the glottal
friction, since it comes mainly from the backed up airstream)

> {MCV}
> > In final position, the difference between /-Vt/ and /-Vd/ is
> > mainly vowel length: /-Vt/ is realized as [-Vt_]
> > ([t_] = unexploded stop), sometimes with preglottalization
> > [-V?t_], or
> {PCR}
> I have never heard a dialect of English with glotallization in this
> position.

I sporadically use final [?t_] myself; I don't know where I got it
from, but I'm told it's normal in some British dialects. However, my
final /d/ doesn't devoice until well after the start of occlusion.

> {MCV}
> > in certain British variants with aspiration/affrication [-Vth] /
> > [-Vts], whereas /-Vd/ is [-V:t_], with lengthened vowel.
> >
> > I'm not making this up. Consult any English phonetics manual
> > (e.g. Ladefoged "A Course in Phonetics", 3rd.ed., chapter 3 "The
> > Consonants of English", p. 50, sample quote: "Most speakers of
> > American English have no voicing during the closure of so-called
> > voiced stops in sentence initial position").
> {PCR}
> I think we are mixing apples and oranges here. First, I would
> question the source of Ladefoged's "most". I, personally, am not
> aware of any difference between sentence internal voiced stops and
> sentence initial voiced stops.
> Secondly, if you wish to claim your "absolute initial" is
> equivalent to Ladefoged's "sentence initial", then why do you seem
> to apply that to _all_ initial voiced stops. Above you seem to be
> neglecting this additional qualification, the validity of which I
> hold in serious doubt.

Yes, I'd say Miguel should probably pick a different language to use
as his example. Korean perhaps?