Re: [tied] More nonsense: Is English /d/ truely voiced?

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:08:31 +0000, "Glen Gordon"
<glengordon01@...> wrote:

>Another link clarifies the articulation of the English voiced
>stop:
>
>http://www.sfu.ca/~saunders/L130_2000/L130_Intro%20to%20stops.pdf
>
>As I've already stated, it's a matter of a late onset (at least,
>"late" in comparison to French). The voicing is nonetheless
>present. The text states clearly:
>
> "In initial position of a word or in syllable initial
> position after a contoid, the voicing starts about
> halfway through the hold phase."

You forgot to quote the sentence immediately preceding:

"It is only in intervocalic position that the voiced stops are fully
voiced (i.e., have vibrating vocal chords during all phases of their
articulation".

I further don't see any mention of the alleged pre-voicing.

>In other words, "voicing" followed by "release". Ergo, the
>English voiced stop in initial position is STILL voiced,
>even if partially so. It even shows this fact with IPA
>symbols just in case one decides to misinterpret further.
>
>Can we now all agree that /d/ is normally voiced in English?

Of course not. Normally voiced is not partially voiced.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...