On 10/25/06, Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> In this regard-- I'm quite sure I don't neutralize the intervocalic t::d
> contrast in e.g. latter::ladder etc. The -d- is definitely voiced, plus the
> vowel is longer.
Whereas I am quite sure I completely neutralize it; "ladder" and
"latter" are perfect homophones.
> I can feel a definite difference in tongue-shape between Engl. potter or pot
> o'[gold] vs. Span. para (even when I americanize its final /a/ to [@]-- so
> it's not the surrounding vowels that make the difference.)
Yup.
> Impressionistically, it seems the back/body of the tongue is higher for the
> Engl. t, while it's lowered for the Span. r. Also, the tongue tip makes
> contact slightly further back for Span. r. This could probably be confirmed
> by X-ray photography. Of course I'm not a native speaker of Span., but have
> years of study, use and listening. (At one point, fluent enough that casual
> listeners would ask what country I was from-- very ego-boosting!!)
Ditto. A Mexican working at EPCOT once asked me if I was Cuban. It
would have been *more* ego-boosting if a Cuban had asked me that, but
I'll take what I can get. :)
> I recall a short film many years ago about the Argentine game of "pato"--
> sort of like polo but using a dead duck (pato) as the "ball" (!!)
Yikes!
> -- the American commentator pronounced the word as if it were Amer. "potto", with
> the flapped t, and it stuck out like a sore thumb.
Yeah, I would have probably heard that in context as "paro". "The
Argentine game of 'I stop' . . ."
--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>