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

Dear Brian:

----- Original Message -----
From: <BMScott@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] More nonsense: Is English /d/ truely voiced?


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick C. Ryan"
<proto-language@...> wrote:

> > > 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 is a perfect example of why our discussions ramble on
> interminably with little progress on the question at hand.

> 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.

[PCR]
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 cannot accept what was not 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.

[PCR]
I claim no competence at all in British dialects. I would be willing to provisionally accept any credible statement about them as true.

But, of course, you did not answer my question at all. Are you a covert American politician? Now, those of you who admire Ladefoged so much, can I presume that you have read him extensively? And if you have, I can only conclude that he has never substantiated his generalizations with specifics. That indicates more than a little prudent caution with regard to his conclusions.


> > > 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.

> 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].

[PCR]
Sure, sure. Why insist on consistency? Too twentieth-century for us moderns!

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

[PCR]
And how do you arrive at that?

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)