Re[6]: ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"]

At 5:24:18 PM on Friday, September 23, 2005, Patrick Ryan
wrote:

> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>

>> 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)

> 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."

So? I haven't seen anyone claiming that they are universal
in U.S. speech.

> 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?].

I have no idea whether you would have noticed or not; on the
very limited evidence offered by this discussion, I'd not
bet on it.

> Until these details are furnished for verification, I
> would question whether this is a rule for American English
> or a mere aberration.

It is neither. Use of [t], [?t], and [?] in these contexts
varies considerably, not just by speaker, but also by
register. There are probably other axes as well, including
sheer chance.

>> <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.

> 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'.

No, the auther is not registering a contrary opinion, but
rather simply noting the existence of a more
refined/detailed version of his general statement. But this
is irrelevant, since the point of the citations was
Ladefoged's statement, and I didn't have the book handy at
the time. Now I do, and can cite p.86 of the 2nd ed'n.

>> <www.lpl.univ-aix.fr/~AMLaP2004/Final_Abstracts_pdf/dautricourt.pdf>

> 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_.

> Notice that this reference notices only [?] as a
> _possible_ allophone of [t].

Meaning that it is one of the realizations that occur in the
stated context. If you're interpreting 'possible' here as
'we're not sure, but maybe it happens', you're choosing an
unnatural reading in order to try to salvage an untenable
thesis.

> Again, no geographical or register or frequency
> information is given.

True. No doubt such information would be nice to have. But
I was concerned only to refute your claim that no U.S.
varieties show this phenomenon. Even my quick and dirty
selection of references does so, and Miguel has supplied an
even better one.

>> 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].

> If it is so commonplace, surely someone besides you has
> noticed it, like maybe even Ladefoged. Why no reference
> for it then.

For the reason that I gave: it's a basic datum that I expect
you either to know or at least to be able to verify from
readily available sources. Moreover, it's hardly surprising
once one knows that /t/ can surface as [?] in some contexts.

Brian