At least here, intervocalic /t/ and /d/ not at the start of a stressed syllable are distinguished - even when they are elided. For starters, intervocalic /t/ makes the preceding vowel short while intervocalic /d/ makes the preceding vowel long, with said length being preserved in the event that they are elided. Secondarily, when they are not elided, intervocalic /t/ is realized as a voiceless flap while intervocalic /d/ is realized as a voiced flap.
Rhotic vs. Non-Rhotic
<<'m not sure if all Americans are 'deaf' to intervocalic T's and D's. I notice some older Americans DO pronounce the 't' in certain circumstances. Remember Ed Sullivan introducing the 'BeaTles?' Maybe he did it to sound more proper/British but I have heard older Americans say the 't' in words like 'butter.'>>
I notice that people tend to pronounce the T's carefully in unusual or unfamiliar words, but flap or omit them more often in words that are common and easily understood regardless of exact pronunciation. This seems to apply even when all of the words in question fall under the same T rules.
It also seems to pressure us to alter pronunciations occasionally in an effort to get around the T-rules. Look at prefixes like multi- and anti-. Usually, anything with anti- is going to fall under the rule where you just drop the T, resulting in a prefix that sounds like "anny". Think of saying annisocial, or anniemetic. But since this can be cause for confusion in spoken speech, I suspect this is why many people change the I to a long I, which then releases the T from the drop-the-T rule, resulting in a clear, if somewhat exaggerated, "an-TYE" -- anTYEsocial, anTYEemetic. Although the T is not dropped in "multi-", it seems to have picked up this pattern as well.
And there is also the matter of variation within speech -- there are times when I say all the T's in "Antarctic" and there are times when I just say 'An Ardic". Just seems to depend on what else I'm saying along with it.
I notice that people tend to pronounce the T's carefully in unusual or unfamiliar words, but flap or omit them more often in words that are common and easily understood regardless of exact pronunciation. This seems to apply even when all of the words in question fall under the same T rules.
It also seems to pressure us to alter pronunciations occasionally in an effort to get around the T-rules. Look at prefixes like multi- and anti-. Usually, anything with anti- is going to fall under the rule where you just drop the T, resulting in a prefix that sounds like "anny". Think of saying annisocial, or anniemetic. But since this can be cause for confusion in spoken speech, I suspect this is why many people change the I to a long I, which then releases the T from the drop-the-T rule, resulting in a clear, if somewhat exaggerated, "an-TYE" -- anTYEsocial, anTYEemetic. Although the T is not dropped in "multi-", it seems to have picked up this pattern as well.
And there is also the matter of variation within speech -- there are times when I say all the T's in "Antarctic" and there are times when I just say 'An Ardic". Just seems to depend on what else I'm saying along with it.
@Trimac: Jasper wasn't saying that you (or anyone) pronounce diarrhea like "dia-reer-a" or whatever. Not at all. He said you should try pronouncing it like that so that you can experience what people without intrusive R's hear with when they listen to people with intrusive R's. It sounds odd, that's all.
Uriel- Really? Here in California the anti- prefix is always pronounced with the long i and I don't think I've ever heard anyone drop the t. Nor have I heard the t in multi- dropped.
You can't drop the T in multi-, because the L preserves it. Which is why it's weird that people sometimes make a big production out of the long I.
I drop the T in anti- all the time! Guess I'm lazy. But it's only possible for me to drop it if I use the short I. If I say it with a long I, I automatically have to say the T. That was where I was going with my previous post.
I drop the T in anti- all the time! Guess I'm lazy. But it's only possible for me to drop it if I use the short I. If I say it with a long I, I automatically have to say the T. That was where I was going with my previous post.
Uriel, for some strange reason, I say "ann-ee" too, (or ant-ee), for "anti"—unlike anybody else I know. I don't have a clue as to where I got it.
Not sure how that works Entbark, needless to say I know how it would sound to a non-rhotic speaker.
'T' dropping seems to occur by some speakers here too, Jasper. Some broad speakers would say 'anti' as 'ann-ee', and centre or center as 'cenna' (non-rhotic Aus). It's like an extreme version of IV flapping. My t/d swapping is variable, as I pointed out, while I drop t's entirely in some words like 'important' and 'curtain.' Perhaps a Britishism of my speech most Aussies don't share with me?
'T' dropping seems to occur by some speakers here too, Jasper. Some broad speakers would say 'anti' as 'ann-ee', and centre or center as 'cenna' (non-rhotic Aus). It's like an extreme version of IV flapping. My t/d swapping is variable, as I pointed out, while I drop t's entirely in some words like 'important' and 'curtain.' Perhaps a Britishism of my speech most Aussies don't share with me?
Anti - meaning a feeling of opposition to something or other. I'm "anti" to a whole lot of things too numerous to list in here, but as far as we Brits are concerned the average person here not wholly consumed by Estuarisation British style always pronounces the "t"....it would make the word sound very strange if it wasn't voiced...it would sound like you were talking about poor old Annie, the batty old biddy next door who's anti everything and everyone anyway, poor wee thing.
Anyway, I thought all Americans pronounced it as as "Ant-eye" - much like "Sem-eye" for semi, and so on. Most Brits find that a wee bit strange but somehow so typically American. Other words fall into this category as well but I can't think of any right at this minute......I knackered.
Anyway, I thought all Americans pronounced it as as "Ant-eye" - much like "Sem-eye" for semi, and so on. Most Brits find that a wee bit strange but somehow so typically American. Other words fall into this category as well but I can't think of any right at this minute......I knackered.
I think both those fall into the category of people only noticing what's strange to them since all three pronunciations of anti and both pronunciations of semi are perfectly ordinary for Americans.
Americans have a tendency to voice the vowel 'i' in prefixes and some words in a pre-consonant context, such as the proper names 'Iran and Iraq.'
I'm fascinated by accents and dialects and love to listen to non-native speakers speak English, I'm open minded and tend to accept and like it all, but one of the only things that irritate me is the intrusive R, but only when used by Americans. I wish it weren't so. I also wish I could roll with the Scots, but I can barely roll an R to save my life. I'm from the Midwestern United States, Northwest Indiana to be precise, though precision dudn't really describe my accent.
I come from a long line of rhotics but for some reason my parents like to warsh things, I don't.
On that note, elsewhere on the web someone asked:
" Why do some people say "warsh" instead of "wash"? "
A certain lynnenorth replied:
" Actually, I think it has to do with the strong easterly winds that blow over Boston; they blow all the "r"s out of the middle of words there, and then the "r"s get dropped into the midwest where the winds die away.
(No, of course I'm not being serious. But still....) "
I come from a long line of rhotics but for some reason my parents like to warsh things, I don't.
On that note, elsewhere on the web someone asked:
" Why do some people say "warsh" instead of "wash"? "
A certain lynnenorth replied:
" Actually, I think it has to do with the strong easterly winds that blow over Boston; they blow all the "r"s out of the middle of words there, and then the "r"s get dropped into the midwest where the winds die away.
(No, of course I'm not being serious. But still....) "
>>" Actually, I think it has to do with the strong easterly winds that blow over Boston; they blow all the "r"s out of the middle of words there, and then the "r"s get dropped into the midwest where the winds die away.
(No, of course I'm not being serious. But still....) "<<
No extra "r"s land here by themselves in Wisconsin (no "warsh" here), but at least here in Milwaukee we actually have an approximant to very weakly (voiced) fricative uvular "r" except after coronals (where then we have a more typical postalveolar approximant either by itself or coarticulated with the former).
(No, of course I'm not being serious. But still....) "<<
No extra "r"s land here by themselves in Wisconsin (no "warsh" here), but at least here in Milwaukee we actually have an approximant to very weakly (voiced) fricative uvular "r" except after coronals (where then we have a more typical postalveolar approximant either by itself or coarticulated with the former).
<<Anyway, I thought all Americans pronounced it as as "Ant-eye" - much like "Sem-eye" for semi, and so on. Most Brits find that a wee bit strange but somehow so typically American.>>
Nope, you will hear all variations here. And I may even use one in one sentence and another in the next.
<<Americans have a tendency to voice the vowel 'i' in prefixes and some words in a pre-consonant context, such as the proper names 'Iran and Iraq.'>>
That's called pronouncing as spelled, and it used to even commonly extend to Italian, although not to Italy, for some odd reason.
Once we started to deal more with these countries -- hostages and wars and such -- we got a better grip on the proper pronunciations, and now it's just as common to hear the "eer" sound. Who says political turmoil has no upside? ;P
Nope, you will hear all variations here. And I may even use one in one sentence and another in the next.
<<Americans have a tendency to voice the vowel 'i' in prefixes and some words in a pre-consonant context, such as the proper names 'Iran and Iraq.'>>
That's called pronouncing as spelled, and it used to even commonly extend to Italian, although not to Italy, for some odd reason.
Once we started to deal more with these countries -- hostages and wars and such -- we got a better grip on the proper pronunciations, and now it's just as common to hear the "eer" sound. Who says political turmoil has no upside? ;P
<<That's called pronouncing as spelled, and it used to even commonly extend to Italian, although not to Italy, for some odd reason. >>
It's because of the stress. Compare i-RAN, i-RAQ and i-TA-lian to I-ta-ly. Vowels in unstressed syllables seem to allow more variation. Especially in words of foreign origin.
It's the same in German. The first vowel in the German word "Emotion" can be either a long E, a short E or a short I. The second one can either be a long O or a short U.
It's because of the stress. Compare i-RAN, i-RAQ and i-TA-lian to I-ta-ly. Vowels in unstressed syllables seem to allow more variation. Especially in words of foreign origin.
It's the same in German. The first vowel in the German word "Emotion" can be either a long E, a short E or a short I. The second one can either be a long O or a short U.
<<<I'll give you an example of how it sounds to us. Pronounce the word "diarrhea" with the intrusive "r" in between each syllable: "dire-a-reer-a": hear how jarring it sounds?>>>
It's interesting. I doubt anyone would pronounce this word that way. I think most people are more likely to add an intrusive yod between /i:/ and the schwa. I've never heard anyone insert an intrusive are in these environments. It would just sound unnatural (at least, to me). Adding an intrusive r after a schwa, a long a or a long o makes the transition from one sound to another easier and so does the intrusive yod (e.g. diarrhea) and the intrusive 'w' (e.g. do it) in other environments.
I might be mistaken, though. Non-rhotic American speakers might use it, I don't know. But non-rhotic Brits don't.
It's interesting. I doubt anyone would pronounce this word that way. I think most people are more likely to add an intrusive yod between /i:/ and the schwa. I've never heard anyone insert an intrusive are in these environments. It would just sound unnatural (at least, to me). Adding an intrusive r after a schwa, a long a or a long o makes the transition from one sound to another easier and so does the intrusive yod (e.g. diarrhea) and the intrusive 'w' (e.g. do it) in other environments.
I might be mistaken, though. Non-rhotic American speakers might use it, I don't know. But non-rhotic Brits don't.