Re[2]: [tied] More nonsense: Is English /d/ truely voiced?

At 1:52:42 PM on Wednesday, February 26, 2003, Patrick C.
Ryan wrote:

>>> No evidence has clearly been presented here "there is ...
>>> no voicing of English /d-/ in some of the *most common*
>>> dialects".

>> Go back and read the earlier messages. I'm not going to
>> waste my time tracking them all down, but off the top of
>> my head Piotr, Miguel, and I have all presented just such
>> evidence, some of it in the form of extensive quotations.
>> If you can't accept it, so be it, but kindly don't try to
>> pretend that it wasn't offered.

> More of the same, I am afraid. Sorry to put a burden on
> your valuable time. Obviously, you would rather persist in
> your misinterpretations of what you have read.

I'm in good company, at any rate.

> I cannot accept what was not there.

Correction: you refuse to accept what was there.

>>> At best, it occurs in some substandard speech.

>>> Now, if what I have written above is NOT true, name just
>>> one common dialect where it is true. Just one!

>> RP (and a variety of non-Northern British dialects), and
>> -- since I accept Ladefoged as a competent witness -- at
>> least some common U.S. dialects.

> But, of course, you did not answer my question at all.

It's a waste of bandwidth, but I wanted to admire the sheer
gall of that statement.

>>>>>> E.g., <døkk> 'dark' (nom.sing.fem.) [tøhk].

>>>>> If Icelandic initial /d/ sounds like English /d/, then why
>>>>> is it being notated as "t"?

>>>>> It looks like Icelandic initial [d] is simple an
>>>>> unaspirated /t/.

>>>> You make my point.

>>> Hardly. English initial _d_ is not simply an unaspirated
>>> /t/.

>> No, it isn't, and I did not in fact say that it was. It
>> is acoustically very similar, however, since for most
>> speakers it is unvoiced for most of its duration. The
>> point here is that a competent observer could describe as
>> sounding 'like English _d_' what another competent
>> observer records as [t].

> Sure, sure. Why insist on consistency?

It's obviously useless, but I will try one last time. The
point is that whatever the sound is, it has been described
by competent observers both as 'like English _d_' and as
unaspirated [t]. THEREFORE (initial) 'English _d_' and
unaspirated [t-] must in fact be perceptually very similar
-- in agreement with an assortment of authorities already
cited.

>> (And it's perhaps also worth noting that the sound is
>> historically /d/.)

> And how do you arrive at that?

A basic knowledge of the relevant part of historical Gmc.
phonology. Since the nom.pl. is <døkkvir>, the adjective
should be a Gmc. wa-stem, either */denkwaz/ or */dinkwaz/
(with lowering of */i/ to */e/ before the nasal), but I
don't know whether there's a cognate that would show which.
German <dunkel> 'dark' is apparently cognate, albeit in
a different grade and with some suffix (*/-il-/?). Further
deponent saith not; I'm a self-taught amateur and know my
current limitations reasonably well.

Brian