'inner' vs. 'inter-' (American English)

Thomas   Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:18 pm GMT
The 't' in 'nt' is often hardly pronounced in American English, even in formal contexts. I have been wondering for a while now if there is still a distinction maintained between 'n' and 'nt', ie. if one should insert a sound similar to the 'tt' in better after the 'n'. I'm currently trying to pronounce eg. 'inner' as [In@`] and 'internet' as [In4@`n3?], but I'm not sure if the difference would even be noticed. In some words, eg. 'horizontal', I can't produce a flap after the 'n', is it ok if I pronounce it as [hQr\IzAn5=] or will that sound strange or uneducated?
Lazar   Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:57 pm GMT
I myself tend to distinguish between intervocalic /n/ and /nt/ to a much greater extent than most AmE speakers probably would. I uniformly pronounce "twenty" as [twEni], but I usually pronounce "Internet" as [Int@`nEt], and I think I would only ever pronounce "horizontal" as [hQr\IzQntl=]. Nonetheless, T-reduction in these instances is extremely common in American English.

As for the flapping phenomenon you're talking about, it's not so much a case of [n4] as of [4~], simply a nasalized flap. You could also just use a simple [n] in this context. So you would be completely fine saying [I4~@`nEt] or just [In@`nEt].
Thomas   Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:36 pm GMT
Thanks. You're right, a nasalized flap is a better description of that sound. I think that's what I'm going for in words like 'internet' an 'winter', and I guess I'll start to pronounce the t in 'horizontal' or 'fundamental'.
One more question: Is it a problem if the 'nn' in 'inner' also comes out as a nasalized flap in fast speech?
Kirk   Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:08 pm GMT
One thing to note is that /nt/ is reduced to [n] or [4~] (the difference can be subtle and some speakers have one, some the other, or use them interchangeably) only in stressed syllables. Thus, some examples from my speech:

"internment" [In"t_h3`nmInt], never *[In"3`nmInt]
"quintuplets" [kwIn"tVplIts], never *[kwIn"VplIts]

but:

"internet" ["In@`nEt]
"winter" ["wIn@`]

<<Is it a problem if the 'nn' in 'inner' also comes out as a nasalized flap in fast speech?>>

Few people would probably notice, tho you might want to save yourself some effort and just use a normal [n] there :)
Lazar   Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:55 pm GMT
Kirk: I don't think my /nt/ simplification is as widespread as yours. For instance, I don't think I would ever pronounce "winter" as [wIn@`]. I usually simplify the /nt/ in "twenty" and "plenty (of)", but these seem to be isolated cases. "Twenty", specifically, seems to have undergone a true phonemic shift from /twEnti/ to /twEni/ for me - I can't think of any situation where I'd realize it with [nt].

One interesting thing is that I seem to have much more progressive assimilation of final /nt/ clusters than of word-medial ones. For instance, I would usually say "They went over there" as [DeI wEn oUv@` DE@`].
Lazar   Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:57 pm GMT
I'm noticing other little patterns in how I treat /nt/ clusters. For instance, I often pronounce "wanted" as [wQnId], but I would never reduce the cluster in a word like "vented" [vEntId].
Kirk   Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:19 am GMT
<<One interesting thing is that I seem to have much more progressive assimilation of final /nt/ clusters than of word-medial ones. For instance, I would usually say "They went over there" as [DeI wEn oUv@` DE@`].>>

Yeah that rule applies to me, too. "They went over there" is [De wIn o_cv@` DEr\] for me. Compare the following:

"She's my aunt" [Si:z maI {~?]

"My aunt ate it" [maI {n e4 It_}]
Buster   Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:20 am GMT
<<[wQnId], but I would never reduce the cluster in a word like "vented" [vEntId].>>

Oh, so you don't use the Australian style i-schwaing here then? That's interesting, because Australians do, and on the other thread http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t608-15.htm you told me that you had i-schwaing in your accent. I guess your i-schwaing must be less extensive than the i-schwaing found in Australian English.
Lazar   Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:41 am GMT
<<That's interesting, because Australians do, and on the other thread http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t608-15.htm you told me that you had i-schwaing in your accent. I guess your i-schwaing must be less extensive than the i-schwaing found in Australian English.>>

Yeah, I can be sort of variable with respect to that. I might as well have transcribed my "wanted" as [wQn@d].

<<"My aunt ate it" [maI {n e4 It_}]>>

Hmm...I think I would only ever say [maI Ant eI4 It_}], with the full [nt]. But in rapid speech, I might simplify the [nt] in a phrase like "point it out to them".

My final [nt] simplification seems a bit more extensive than my medial simplification, but I think it's still less extensive than yours.
Kirk   Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:33 am GMT
<<My final [nt] simplification seems a bit more extensive than my medial simplification, but I think it's still less extensive than yours.>>

Yeah, it seems so. Interesting. I didn't know there was that wide a degree of variability in NAE in terms of /nt/. You definitely appear to reduce /nt/ to [n] or [4~] less than I do.
Travis   Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:59 am GMT
I normally usually realize intervocalic /nt/ and /nd/ as [4~], including across word boundaries, except if, within words, the following vowel is stressed, and across word boundaries, if the /t/ or /d/ belongs to the following word. There are a few exceptions, such as the word "into" (/"Intu/ -> ["I~:n.tu]), where this does not happen, though, in my dialect, and some places where this may or may not happen, such as the word "vented" (while realizing /nt/ as [4~] is mandatory for "wanted" here).
Lazar   Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:57 pm GMT
<<My final [nt] simplification seems a bit more extensive than my medial simplification, but I think it's still less extensive than yours.>>

Yeah, it seems so. Interesting. I didn't know there was that wide a degree of variability in NAE in terms of /nt/. You definitely appear to reduce /nt/ to [n] or [4~] less than I do.
Ecko   Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:03 pm GMT
Same thing happened in the transition from Latin to Italian. Octo became otto, -us to o, -um to a...
Lazar   Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:29 am GMT
Umm...the last post by "Lazar" obviously wasn't written by me. It's just somebody repeating one of Kirk's posts under my username, for some reason.
Kirk   Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:30 am GMT
Umm...the last post by "Kirk" obviously wasn't written by me. It's just somebody repeating one of Lazar's posts under my username, for some reason.