From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 40481
Date: 2005-09-24
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 6:20 PM
Subject: 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.
***
Patrick:
Nor have you or anyone else been able to document where (except Long
Gisland) it is used, what kind of people use, and what percentage of GA
speakers use it.
The implication of what you wrote was that this is quite common. Based on
what? I still
ask but I get no sensible answer. There is a big gap between universal and
aberration.
This is why I hold Ladefoged in such small regard. He pontificates but
considers documentation beneath his dignity.
***
>
> > 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.
***
Patrick:
I would be willing to bet that most people would require something more than
an oracle (Ladefoged) before they made such sweeping claims.
Your failure to provide details is a moving testimony to your 'faith' but an
evidence of your contempt for the scientific method.
***
> > 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.
***
Patrick:
More bland generalizations because you have nothing specific to add.
"varies considerably"? Does that mean 1 in 10,000,000 GA speakers uses it?
***
> >> <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>
***
Patrick:
Nonsense. Where does the author cite Ladefoged's rule? I must have missed
it.
Anything you cite from Ladefoged is worthless unless it includes specifics
that can be verified.
***
> > 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.
***
Patrick:
Good straw man. It might fool some readers on this list.
Of course, I understand "possible" to mean that there are recorded instances
of this phenomenon.
It is also "possible" that some idiot can pronounce final /t/ as [g] but the
numbers would quickly reveal that he was mentally retarded, with a cleft
palate, residing in the Louisiana swamps, and under serious sedation.
Your position is not tenable because you have no evidence to back it up. I
have asked for some repeatedly and I believe if you had some, I would have
read it by now.
***
> > 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.
***
Patrick:
Until you tell me what US varieties show this phenomenon, I will have to
conclude that it happens only in Long Gisland 15% of the time.
***
> >> 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
***
Patrick:
It is totally outrageous for you to assert that anyone should know what
_you_ consider to be a "basic datum".
My conclusion from all this, is that you know nothing because you have only
Ladefoged to base your opinion on (and you do not even know on what he bases
his opinion). If the sources are so "readily available", why do you not cite
them? After all, this is your thesis to prove.
"in some contexts"? Are you capable of being specific about anything? Or is
that "academic correctness"?
***