From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 40502
Date: 2005-09-24
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
To: "Patrick Ryan" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 8:08 PM
Subject: Re[8]: ka and k^a [was: [tied] *kW- "?"]
> At 8:08:25 PM on Friday, September 23, 2005, Patrick Ryan
> wrote:
>
> > From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
>
> >> 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.
>
> > The implication of what you wrote was that this is quite
> > common. Based on what?
>
> (1) My own observation. (2) The reported observations of
> others, some of them specialists in the field.
>
> Bluntly, if you haven't noticed the phenomenon, then either
> you lead a charmed life, you haven't paid attention, or
> you're incapable of recognizing it when you hear it. If you
> haven't encountered it in your reading, then you can't have
> read much about the pronunciation of English in the 20th
> century and later. (I limit it so because to the best of my
> knowledge the tendency towards glottalization of
> syllable-final and pre-nasal voiceless stops is modern.)
***
Patrick:
I am not in the slightest interested in English pronunciation, particularly
as enunciated by such unbelievable theorists as Ladefoged.
GIGO
I can only guess, from the Long Gisland example, that the phenomenon may be
restricted to certain ethnic groups in the United States. And, let us
remember, we started out with questioning whether [hat] or [hæt] was
pronounced with a final [?].
***
> >>> 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.
>
> > More bland generalizations because you have nothing
> > specific to add.
>
> No, it is not a bland generalization: it is a specific
> rebuttal of your false dichotomy. Glottalization, either to
> [?t] or all the way to [?], is (utterly unsurprisingly) more
> common in informal contexts. In sufficiently informal
> contexts it very nearly is a rule for some speakers; I'm one
> of them. For other speakers it's a more sporadic
> phenomenon. I've heard a few speakers who rarely glottalize
> in any context. Thus, it is not a rule for American English
> in general; it is a rule that is employed to different
> extents, ranging from near 0% to near 100%, by different
> speakers. My own observation would suffice to show me that
> it's far too common to be classed as an aberration, even
> without reference to expert opinion.
***
Patrick:
Hooray for the Beatles. If you want to pretend to be a Cockney, be my guest.
It is, in England, a lower class phenomenon.
If you were any kind of a scientist, you would require some proof beyond
your own personal and subjective observations.
***
> > "varies considerably"? Does that mean 1 in 10,000,000 GA
> > speakers uses it?
>
> I strongly suspect that the majority of native speakers of
> U.S. varieties of English realize syllable-final and
> pre-nasal /t/ as [?t] at least some of the time. I'm quite
> confident that very few realize such /t/ as [?] all of the
> time.
***
Patrick:
I suspect that Bush is clinically insane but, unfortunately, that will not
get him into the straitjacket he so desperately needs.
As for your suspicions, so what? As for your confidence, since it is based
only on your own observations, it is faith not knowledge.
***
> >>>> <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.
>
> > Nonsense. Where does the author cite Ladefoged's rule? I
> > must have missed it.
>
> You did. Look again at the section 'Tapping' and the
> reference to Ladefoged (1993:65).
>
> > Anything you cite from Ladefoged is worthless unless it
> > includes specifics that can be verified.
>
> Worthless to you, you mean. The book in question is an
> elementary textbook; no reasonable person would expect the
> kind of detailed evidence that would go into a research
> paper. I'm perfectly willing to accept Ladefoged's summary
> of the situation, pending genuine counterevidence: he's a
> well-regarded expert, and besides, what he reports agrees
> with my experience and with the reports of others. Your
> opinion carries little if any weight.
***
Patrick:
Worthless to anyone who pretends to want to objectively discover the truth.
If you are a fundamentalist Ladefogian, do not expect me to blindly worship
at the same altar.
Elementary textbooks usually have notes for those who wish to seriously
pursue subjects rather than just swallow the pap they are served. Do you not
teach your students to think?
The fact that you are willing to accept Ladefoged without data or proof
disqualifies your opinion from serious consideration.
Now I know what Ladefoged has alleged. I have my own observations on which
to base a preliminary opinion that I would be willing to change based on
data and facts. You seem to be able to provide none, nor need them.
Have you ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophesy?
***
>
> >>>> <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.
>
> > Good straw man.
>
> Had I assumed (or feigned to assume) that you were in fact
> interpreting 'possible' in that way, it would have been a
> straw man, but I did not, and it is not. I simply answered
> in advance an argument that I could easily imagine you
> making.
***
Patrick:
Your imagination may be a little off.
***
> > Of course, I understand "possible" to mean that there are
> > recorded instances of this phenomenon.
>
> Most excellent.
***
Patrick:
Thank you. I have been a native speaker of English for some time, and think
I have a passable understanding of words of not more than three syllables.
***
> > 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.
>
> On the contrary, you've been given evidence by both me and
> Miguel. Both of us have also explained why the highly
> detailed kind of evidence that you want is in short supply,
> and you've managed to justify to yourself dismissing
> everything that's been offered. Since I have little doubt
> that you will continue to do so, I shan't trouble myself to
> hunt further.
***
Patrick:
If this evidence is in short supply (probably for Ladefoged as well), then
sweeping generalizations are unwarranted.
It does not matter in the slightest why evidence is not available. It only
matters that it is not available.
I shan't trouble myself to read any further empty generalizations.
***
> >>>> 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.
>
> > It is totally outrageous for you to assert that anyone
> > should know what _you_ consider to be a "basic datum".
>
> Of course I did no such thing. If memory serves, everyone
> else involved in this discussion seems to have been aware of
> it, and Miguel at least indicated that he considered it
> common knowledge ('The preglottalization in English (AE and
> RP) is obvious to anybody without a tin ear and with a
> little training in phonetics').
>
> This has now been off-topic for quite a while. If you have
> anything to the point to add, phoNet is probably the right
> place.
>
> Brian
***
Patrick:
Yes, you are right. This forum usually deals with facts rather than
subjective opinions.
***