> On Oct 24, 2006, at 8:17 PM, David J. Peterson wrote:
>
> > Katya wrote:
> > <<
> > I can't think of any examples of stress in natlangs affecting
> > pronunciation of consonants in a similar way, so I'm hoping someone
> > here will either be able to give me examples or tell me that I should
> > drop this idea if I care about realism. =)
> > >>
> >
> > Really? Not a one? Not even a phoneme like /t/ in a language
> > like...English? ~:D
> >
> > This doesn't apply to all dialects, but a good number of them
> > have the following realizations for /t/:
> >
> > [t]
> > [t_h]
> > [4]
>
> I've always been a little skeptical of the claim that the third one
> is a tap/flap; in my dialect it sounds like /d/ and not very much
> like the Spanish /4/ that I'm familiar with. Besides that, sometimes
> I hear people who definitely *do* use [4], and it sounds odd to me.
> For example, Terri Gross on NPR's "Fresh Air" often says something
> like "Coming up on today's Fresh Air" and the word "today" sounds to
> me almost like /t@rei/.
>
> >
> > With some minor variations, you get the first after [s] and word-
> > finally; the second, word-initially. The latter is dependent entirely
> > upon stress (and vowels). Take the word "Gattaca", for instance.
> > If you pronounce
> > it as in the movie, with stress on the first syllable, the /t/ is
> > pronounced [4]. Now let's say you wanted to make up a nonce
> > word to describe the movie as "Gattacular!" Now the /t/ is
>
> The word "Gattacular" is interesting. I really am not sure how I
> should pronounce it; for one, there's a question of whether the first
> syllable should have [@] or [{]. If it's [@], I would use [t_h]; but
> if it's [}], I would say [t:_h] (a geminate aspirated /t/) or maybe
> [t_} t_h] (unreleased /t/ followed by aspirated /t/) (I suspect that
> the two are equivalent, but I'm not sure).
>
> But on the other hand, yet a third pronunciation suggests itself to
> my mind, although it seems like my least favorite one. I'm not sure
> how to describe or transcribe it; I think it either uses an
> unaspirated /t/, a flap (or whatever my equivalent of a flap is), or
> an unreleased /t/ (can you pronounce an unreleased stop right before
> a vowel?), but definitely not aspirated. It's actually the same sound
> as in the phrase "cat actor", with accent on "actor."
>
> > pronounced [t_h]. This is pretty much the exact same environment
> > as you describe, the only difference being where English has [4],
> > you have [s]. Now, I know that I've actually seen a language
> > where [t] and [s] are in complimentary distribution, but since
> > I can't think it up, just think about the process. What's happening
> > is the main emphasis of the word is put before the /t/ (this is
> > not a scientific description), so the rest becomes kind of less
> > emphatic. To make it flow more easily (and to make it more
> > like the vowels around), the segment becomes less stop-like
> > and more vowel-like, while still trying to retain its /t/-ness. In
> > English, it achieves this by keeping the place of articulation,
> > and essentially shortening it until it becomes a tap, sacrificing
> > voicing*. In your language, you keep the place of articulation
> > and the voicing and sacrifice the manner, making it a fricative.
> > I'd think of both sound changes as versions of the same change.
> >
> > [*] There's now phonetic evidence that suggests, among other
> > things, that there is a voicing difference between the /d/ tap
> > and the /t/ tap. Go fig.
>
> Really? Do tell! If there is a voicing difference, I can't perceive
> it -- although my dialect has some Canadian raising tendencies, so it
> distinguishes "rider" from "writer" by the quality of the /ai/
> diphthong.
>
> >
> > -David
> > *******************************************************************
> > "A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
> > "No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
> >
> > -Jim Morrison
> >
> >
http://dedalvs.free.fr/
>