Re[4]: [tied] More nonsense: Is English /d/ truely voiced?

At 2:22:42 PM on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, Patrick C. Ryan
wrote:

>>> First off, what language has a "voiceless /d/" and how
>>> would it contrast with a "voiceless /t/"?

>> Icelandic. Stefán Einarsson, _Icelandic_, p. 13:

>> _d_ is always voiceless. Initially it sounds like English
>> _d_ [d]: _dagur_ [da:qYr.] day. Medially and finally it
>> sounds more like _t_ (French _t_) and is marked [d.].

> This sounds like a possible former student of Ladefoged.

Hardly: L. got his PhD in 1959, and S.E.'s text on modern
Icelandic was published in 1945.

> What in God's name does "sounds like English _d_ mean???
> Since we have determined that English /d/ is not voiceless
> (in most dialects),

No, we haven't. The evidence presented here has clearly
shown: that there is little or no voicing of English /d-/ in
some of the most common dialects; that voice onset in
English /d-/ typically occurs very late, somewhere in a very
short interval around the release; and that even in the
absence of voicing the vocal folds are maintained in a
position appropriate for voicing.

> this description is inaccurate at best, ignorant at worst.

>> 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.

Brian