From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 40434
Date: 2005-09-23
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 3:26 PM
Subject: Re[4]: ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"]
> At 12:46:42 on Friday, 23 September 2005, Patrick Ryan
> wrote:
>
> > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
> >> Final stops, especially /t/, are often (pre-) glottalized
> >> in American and Canadian English, and from there it's a
> >> short step to losing the original articulation entirely
> >> and getting simply [?].
>
> > Do you have a reference from a phonetician supporting your
> > superior listening abilities?
>
> Some readily available examples referring to the realization
> of /t/ as [?]:
>
> <http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~port/teach/541/allophones.html>:
>
> /t/ (and sometimes /p,k/) -> [?] /__ [+] or /__ N
> (where [+] is syllable boundary)
***
Patrick:
The key to understanding what significance this rule has is contained in the
first paragraph:
"Of course, not every American speaker may use them all."
I have noticed before that Ladefoged happily quotes rules like this without
ever specifying where (geographical area) they are operable or who
(register) operates with them. It would also be helpful to know what
percentage of American speakers Ladefoged would claim for this operation.
I have been all over the United States and have never heard [?] being used
for final [t]; and I would surely have noticed because of my name: [pat] not
[pa?].
Until these details are furnished for verification, I would question whether
this is a rule for American English or a mere aberration.
***
> <http://odin.prohosting.com/hkkim/cgi-bin/kaeps/eng_phon.htm>:
>
> Quoting from Ladefoged's _Course in Phonetics_: This does
> not apply to /t/ before syllabic [n] as in 'mutton'
> ['m&?n] because the /t/ there has become a glottal stop.
>
> (The [n] in the transcription of 'mutton' is marked as
> syllabic in the original.) This is in a discussion of
> American pronunciation.
***
Patrick:
In this reference, the author (evidently, a Korean) does not assert
Ladefoged's rule but merely cites it to register a contrary opinion
constituting an exception to his rule on 'flapping'.
***
>
> <www.lpl.univ-aix.fr/~AMLaP2004/Final_Abstracts_pdf/dautricourt.pdf>
***
Patrick:
In this reference, it states that [?] is an allophonic variant of [t] for
female speakers but does not cite any numbers relating to frequency or
register.
***
> <http://www.indiana.edu/~hlw/PhonProcess/accents.html>:
>
> The glottal stop is a possible allophone of /t/ in GA, but
> only in the context where it follows a vowel and precedes
> a consonant, for example, in _outright chaos_ and _let me
> go_.
>
***
Patrick:
Notice that this reference notices only [?] as a _possible_ allophone of
[t]. Again, no geographical or register or frequency information is given.
***
> The realization of /t/ as [?t] (and sometimes of /k/ and /p/
> as [?k] and [?p] resp.) before a syllable boundary or nasal
> is commonplace and should need no REFERENCE.
>
> Brian
***
Patrick:
If it is so commonplace, surely someone besides you has noticed it, like
maybe even Ladefoged. Why no reference for it then. Has not Ladefoged not
seen it at least once and made up a fine rule about it?
"Should need no REFERENCE" merely displays, for all to see, the untenability
of this assertion.
If Ladefoged can assert that [?] has been substituted for final [t] (before
another consonant?), then probably it has happened - at least once.
But his failure to provide means of verification by citing frequency, region
or dialect, and register make his assertion practically meaningless.
I would consider anyone who made such a substitution 1) ignorant, 2)
low-class, 3) possessing a speech defect, or 4) a Brit.
Which are you?
***