# Can we start with a vowel  ?



## linguaquraan-alm

I am reading online book about  Syllable structure of English  , the  author says that  the word "ant'  has VCC syllable ,i think something  wrong here  ....generally speaking if we can start with a vowel so, it's  no longer a vowel  ....can anyone explain  how  could one start with a  vowel,and still  we call  it   a  vowel  !!!


----------



## entangledbank

I am not clear why you think English words can't begin with vowels. Are you thinking of Arabic, where all words really begin with consonants - the glottal stop (hamza) sound even for those that in English we write beginning with A, I, or U? That's only true of some languages - Arabic and German, for example. In English there is no hamza sound at the beginning of a word like 'ant'. It really does begin with a vowel sound.


----------



## linguaquraan-alm

this has nothing to do with ur native language , the phonetics rules are absolute and applicable to any language ,if you go to Praat program  and record  a  simple syllable like "am" then reverse the selection " the whole syllable" and replay  ,you will recognize the sound of glottal stop (ʔ) irrespective of your mother tongue ,so what i think that "ant' must be "ʔant " it means CVCC and not VCC < by the way if you make the reverse selection for  the same word "ant"  you will  also recognize the (ʔ)  !!!!!that's why i  said VCC for "ant"  is not correct  !!!


----------



## Cagey

What book are you reading, linguaquraan-alm?  Or what website?

I believe most books in English would analyze 'ant' as VCC.  Do you know of one that says it is CVCC?  Have you a book in English that states as a rule that words must begin with a consonant sound?

Note, in case someone is curious: _C_ stands for _consonant_ and_ V_ stands for _vowel_.  This is just a short-hand way of noting the type and pattern of sounds in a word. If the word 'ant' is VCC, it starts with a vowel sound.  If 'ant' is CVCC, then the first sound is the sound of an (unwritten) consonant.


----------



## berndf

linguaquraan-alm said:


> this has nothing to do with ur native language , the phonetics rules are absolute and applicable to any language ,if you go to Praat program and record a simple syllable like "am" then reverse the selection " the whole syllable" and replay ,you will recognize the sound of glottal stop (ʔ) irrespective of your mother tongue ,so what i think that "ant' must be "ʔant " it means CVCC and not VCC < by the way if you make the reverse selection for the same word "ant" you will also recognize the (ʔ) !!!!!that's why i said VCC for "ant" is not correct !!!


You are mistaken. Syllable structure depends hugely on language. As does phoneme structure, by the way, which is the basis of syllable structure. In European languages [?] does not count as a consonant but as a syllable separator and there are good reasons for that.


----------



## entangledbank

There is a clear, audible difference between [ant] and [ʔant], even when said on their own. When I speak Arabic, German, or Czech, I have to make a conscious effort to put in the glottal stops, and I know it'll sound wrong if I use the English (French, Spanish . . .) pronunciation beginning with a vowel.


----------



## linguaquraan-alm

there was a discussion on this at  ICPhS( International congress of phonetic science)in the seventies, I think, with the Swedish example  "allon" sounding like "nolla?" (? = glottal stop) when reversed. The discussants were as bewildered as you are now because they didn't want to believe that glottal stop is a distinctive phoneme .But for me I can not  imagine the initial ''Vowel " without a starting point or  preparing process, otherwise it means that the vocal cords are ever  vibrating without limit, and when we pronounce initial "vowel''we only  widen our mouth to let others hear it !! No, this would be unbelievable.  There is a preparing stage with ''?"where the vocal cords close the  airstream completly for a very brief  time then,they open-as if they  release a plosive "?"  this is  accelerating process before the vowel start .
English  "Hotel " is CVCVC but in turkish it's Otel and according to u it's VCVC  ,here you have dropped somthing  , it's the glottal stop which replaced  the 'H' in the turkish word . ʕamman ( the cap.of Jordan)so written and pronounced in Ar., but according to you it would be for sure Amman then the      

(ʕ) which is a distinctive  consonant phoneme in Ar.,will disappear in ur account although it has been replaced by the glottal stop .....and so on .Can you tell how would you symbolize  according to ( V -C)a german verb like "vereisen " to  freeze  or 'erinnern" to remind   !!!


----------



## fdb

As I understand things, in modern standard German there is no glottal stop in “eisen” nor in “vereisen”, though the latter does have a syllable juncture after the /r/. It is true that old manuals of “deutsche Hochlautung” or “Bühnensprache” prescribe a glottal stop before initial vowels, in the same way that they prescribe an alveolar /r/, but this is not how German is pronounced in daily life.


----------



## berndf

berndf said:


> You are mistaken. Syllable structure depends hugely on language. As does phoneme structure, by the way, which is the basis of syllable structure. In European languages [?] does not count as a consonant but as a syllable separator and there are good reasons for that.



That is bordering hyper-correction. [?] is never mandatory anywhere. It is sufficent to articulate an audible syllable break. You may but not need to support it by a glottal closure as long as you don't produce any artefacts by the gradual voice onset that could be mistaken for a phoneme (e.g. an /h/). An audible glottal release is never required.

I can see a difference in degree of audibility and in usage frequency of glottal closures to support syllable breaks in front of vowels in German and in English but none of principle.



linguaquraan-alm said:


> there was a discussion on this at ICPhS( International congress of phonetic science)in the seventies, I think, with the Swedish example "allon" sounding like "nolla?" (? = glottal stop) when reversed. The discussants were as bewildered as you are now because they didn't want to believe that glottal stop is a distinctive phoneme.


That is very unlikely. No one with at least some training in phonetics would fail to recognize [?] as a *phone* in its own right. The question we are discussing here is if it should count as a *phoneme* in European languages. Of course, every phonological description of a language is a rational reconstruction and there is therefore some degree of arbitrariness in the systematization of phonemes but I think there is very good reason not to count [?] as a phoneme, not only in English and French but also in German where the ubiquity of [?] sticks out like a sore thumb:

As I said above, [?] is never mandatory. It can always be replaced by a non-glottalized hiatus as long as the inevitably gradual voice onset does not produce a pronunciation where V- could be confused the hV-.
[?] can only ever occur in isolation (e.g. not in a consonant cluster) in front of a vowel in the syllable onset (with an important exception I will come to later). This is of course also true for  which is undoubtedly a phoneme and a consonant in German. But the important difference is that even though a German would find it difficult to produce an  in other positions, he would nevertheless have no problems to identify it as a consonant, e.g. in أهرام. Though he would probably mistake ه for خ, he would surely detect it as a consonant. On the other hand, he would not be able to detect [?] in رأس, i.e. he would not be able to distinguish between رأس and رس without proper training.
[*]The frequency with which glottalization of empty syllables onsets occurs for the same word is strongly dependent on stress and speed.
[*][?] can occur (like in English) as a variant realization of /t/ in front of nasal consonants (/n/ and /m/).
 

None of these reasons is individually compelling but in sum it makes a strong case for regarding glottalization of empty syllables onsets as a prosodic and not as a phonemic element.


----------



## ernest_

linguaquraan-alm said:


> But for me I can not  imagine the initial ''Vowel " without a starting point or  preparing process, otherwise it means that the vocal cords are ever  vibrating without  limit, and when we pronounce initial "vowel''we only  widen our mouth to  let others hear it !! No, this would be unbelievable.There is a preparing stage with ''?"where the vocal cords close the   airstream completly for a very brief  time then,they open-as if they   release a plosive "?"  this is  accelerating process before the vowel  start .


That you can't imagine it doesn't mean it can't be done. Speakers of Romance languages produce utterance-initial vowels constantly, as I am sure do speakers of other languages.


----------



## Dib

linguaquraan-alm said:


> But for me I can not  imagine the  initial ''Vowel " without a starting point or  preparing process,  otherwise it means that the vocal cords are ever  vibrating without  limit, and when we pronounce initial "vowel''we only  widen our mouth to  let others hear it !!



I believe, it is possible that many instances/realizations of the so-called vowel initial syllables in English have a _phonetic_ glottal stop before them. However, it is never _phonemic_. Hence within the constraints of English _phonology_,  these syllables are vowel-initial. On the other hand, I don't see why  vowel-initial syllables sound phonetically impossible to you. Why do you  think, it is impossible to have the glottis unconstricted when the  exhalation, required for making the vowel, starts? I am sure, you do not  have a glottal occlusion+audible release sequence each time you exhale, e.g.  when you are just breathing or panting.


----------



## Hulalessar

linguaquraan-alm said:


> ...if you go to Praat program  and record  a  simple syllable like "am" then reverse the selection " the whole syllable" and replay  ,you will recognize the sound of glottal stop (ʔ)



I cannot help wondering if that is not some sort of auditory illusion. I do not know enough about phonetics to know if the concepts of "attack" and "decay" applicable to music apply, but if they do it would seem to explain it. If a note played on the piano is played backwards the sound stops very abruptly. It hardly sounds like a piano at all because the overtones in the attack are part of what helps us recognise what instrument we are listening to. What would be conclusive is a speech graph comparing the articulation of "am" with (a) the sound occurring in the middle of "bottle" in so-called Cockney (b) any German word beginning with a vowel (c) any Arabic word beginning with hamza.


----------



## berndf

Hulalessar said:


> any German word beginning with a vowel


I have to repeat, this is a complete and utter yet widespread myth. Glottalization of empty onsets is frequent and sometimes rather strong but by no means necessary and certainly not definitory.


----------



## Hulalessar

berndf said:


> I have to repeat, this is a complete and utter yet widespread myth. Glottalization of empty onsets is frequent and sometimes rather strong but by no means necessary and certainly not definitory.



Noted, thank you. Consider (b) removed from post 12.


----------



## berndf

@linguaquraan-alm: To demonstrate that there is indeed a difference between a glottalized and and a non-glottalized initial vowels, please compare these two recordings of the German word _Ende_, phone*m*ically /'ɛn.də/. The first (by _Wellenreiter_) is strongly glottalized, i.e. phone*t*ically ['ʔɛn.də], and the second one (by _Thonatas_) has almost no audible glottalization (although I admit there is one, a faint aspirated click of about 15ms before the voice onset), i.e. phone*t*ically ['ɛn.də]. Both versions are perfectly acceptable standard German and are phonemically completely equivalent yet show a clear and unmistakable phonetic difference.


----------



## linguaquraan-alm

Dear discussants,
  I am basically an electrical engineer whose love to linguistics pushes him to learn and read about this  
 branch of science which he is fond of . (  I think that Gunnar Fant was basically electro-eingineer was'nt he ?) Maybe I am not as good as you are in phonetics and phonology ,nevertheless  I try to be a good one. I will make my reply to your comments in two major points.

 1- I hope according to the following explanation I will offer hereunder,that  we agree  that phonation is   can-at least-visualized as  a chopping process of air stream then I will go forward to the 2nd point  :
    two years ago a friend of mine told me that when he reversed (on Praat) a syllable of a sonorant  followed by a vowel  , like (m+e ) for example he recognize the sound of (hem) , when I myself repeat this  process with different combinations, the results was beyond my little understanding :with "ke' the result is '"hek"'or rather '"haik", with "'se'' the result is ''hes ''or rather ''hais'' .I dropped a question on Praat-users group , received different explanations . Endly I found a better explanation which I  did accept and developed:


 the reason  that 'h'' occures in the reversed section of 'm+e “  is :as soon as  the vocal cords stop vibration,there will come   little air,  occures as ''h” as secondary product    because the process of "'vowel  -e-'' phonation  is  indeed a chopping  process of continouse airstream or continouse "' stream of  -h- itself ''.As soon as chopping ends up i.e.vibration stops ,the 'h'' occures as a  residual  or  by-product of this  process .But if we reverse a syllable like /mes/ there will be no chance to ''h''occurrence since /s/ will follow the vowel directly.    
 Let me resemble the phonation  process of  vowel ''e'' with another natural process.If i have an ''extruder'' which pushes a stream of clay or dough,followed by a "'cutter''which performs  chopping of the clay or dough at 40 times per second.I would expect  that as soon as the cutter stops chopping, there still a  little bar  of  non chopped dough passes -or escapes-through.This simulation could be a good explanation why ''h'' occures in our topic.The extruder may simulates the lungs function and the cutter for the vocal cords function. This means that the glottis function is like a chopping valve of  the   airstream of “h”,just  like an  electro- DC to AC converter .
 If you accept this explanation (as I hope ) let me move to the  2nd point  


 2-   The glottis can be more than on-off valve ,it has also a function of controlling or  regulating  the volume of air  passing through it /per unit of time . If you give a look to the figure here on the link  
http://clas.mq.edu.au/speech/phonetics/phonetics/airstream_laryngeal/pulmonic.html
 ,you can  visualize the glottis(including the vocal folds) as a multi function valve  

a- converting the air stream expelled by the Lungs /through a process  like chopping as above mentioned/  into complicated vocal waves  
 b-  the glottis plays another role  as a regulating valve.This regulation  is done through either  
 complete closure or  partial closure  .In case of complete closure ( valve  is off: infinite resistance to air flow , the air flow in “STOP POSITION” this  position is responsible   for the glottal stop initiation  , But partial closure (  low or less  resistance )  is responsible for initiation the “h' phone.We notice that “h' is very short and mostly can not exist alone without vowel because it's an air stream whose resistance is very low compared to “s” or 'f” or any other fricative (try it yourself to realize how long can h stay in your mouth ...it's indeed very short due to low resistance which( aerodynamically)  points out to   large volume of air/ per time unit   for specific pressure of lungs.
 So I think that those who claim the existence of glottal stop in the  beginning  of initial vowel like in “ant'” are right  because they initiate their  own vowel with a glottal stop ,and those who claims there is not any glottal stop in their own  initial vowel are also right ,except that the 2nd  discussants maybe not aware that they  initiate their own vowel with “h” but  so light that they don't recognize it or  the  initial vowels  utterance is done  ( abruptly) without noticing the short 'h' .  
 Accordingly , I would  modify  my previous statement where I said “”””
 But for me I can not imagine the initial ''Vowel " without a starting point or preparing process, otherwise it means that the vocal cords are ever vibrating without limit, and when we pronounce initial "vowel''we only widen our mouth to let others hear it !!  “””  and would say (….....without a starting point which is either glottal stop for those who initiate their own vowel  with it, or with “impalpable h” for others )

   According to the above-mentioed point concerning the chopping function of the vocal cords  there will be no “VOICING” without airstream , and this airstream  can be said as h-airstream ,so the occurrence of either “h' (directly ) or  glottal stop a little moment before it ,is undoubtedly in my POV and according to the above-said reasons.
 I think this is the main reason that we find a lot of words in the same family of languages ,appears sometimes with “h” consonant and other times without it (I mean with glottal stop ) .Example  
 Uhr(ger.)-ora(it)-hawr (welch) with h  , also the example I gave before 'hotel eng.Vs otel tur.” and so on .


----------



## linguaquraan-alm

berndf said:


> @linguaquraan-alm: To demonstrate that there is indeed a difference between a glottalized and and a non-glottalized initial vowels, please compare these two recordings of the German word _Ende_, phone*m*ically /'ɛn.də/. The first (by _Wellenreiter_) is strongly glottalized, i.e. phone*t*ically ['ʔɛn.də], and the second one (by _Thonatas_) has almost no audible glottalization (although I admit there is one, a faint aspirated click of about 15ms before the voice onset), i.e. phone*t*ically ['ɛn.də]. Both versions are perfectly acceptable standard German and are phonemically completely equivalent yet show a clear and unmistakable phonetic difference.



Thanx berndf for the recordings , i have built up my POV according to such recordings and other reasons you will find in my reply.


----------



## berndf

linguaquraan-alm said:


> Thanx berndf for the recordings , i have built up my POV according to such recordings and other reasons you will find in my reply.


But you are drawing the wrong consequences. I quite agree with you that initial /h/ and /?/ can in seen as different "types" of glottalizations and this is valid for many languages. But it does not means that absence of /h/ necessarily means presence of [?]. It is quite possible to distinguish phonetically between and audible [?], an audible  and an empty consonant.


----------



## linguaquraan-alm

berndf said:


> ...... It is quite possible to distinguish phonetically between and audible [?], an audible  and an empty consonant.



 Do you mean in word initial !! can you  give me example/examples  of this empty consonant  !!!!!!

wait >>>>  i have  probably caught the point , Do u mean there is an empty consonant in the recording u gave,  by the 2nd speaker ( _Thonatas_)  as for  the word "Ende"" !!!!


----------



## berndf

Yes, that is my point. The two realizations are sufficiently different to build a phonemic distinction on it. German happens not to distinguish phonemically but the difference is easily detectable for a German speaker. I asked by daughter to describe what the different was without telling here what I was after and she immediately said (among other respects in which the two differ) that one was with _'e_ (she pronounced a glottal stop in isolation followed by an unvoiced Schwa) and one was without.

Your language on the other hand knows this distinctions as phonemic, though only in a single word but that is a very important one: Compare ال and أل.


----------



## fdb

bernd, are you talking about the Arabic article?


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> bernd, are you talking about the Arabic article?



Yes. In contrast to words based on the root ?-L-L.


----------



## fdb

The Arabic article is realised as /ʼal/ after a pause only. Otherwise is loses both the hamza and the vowel and becomes merely /l/; in both cases the /l/ is assimilated to the following consonant if the latter is a sun letter. (I am talking about classical Arabic).


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> In contrast to words based on the root ?-L-L.



Minimal pairs?


----------



## linguaquraan-alm

berndf said:


> But you are drawing the wrong consequences. I  quite agree with you that initial /h/ and /?/ can in seen as different  "types" of glottalizations and this is valid for many languages. But it  does not means that absence of /h/ necessarily means presence of [?]. It  is quite possible to distinguish phonetically between and audible [?],  an audible  and an empty consonant.


I think your reply has taken  me back to the beginning that i should repeat myself and repeat re-form my ex- explanation 
However, to give my  POV about your last comment  , I  would suggest (for a reason I will tell later) that we make  " questionnaire" 'Umfrage" "survey" or whatever you call, about 3 voices I took from the very  site you have  already given ......let the others in this Forum (if willing) tell who among the 3 speakers makes the vowel voice onset with glottalization, and who does not !!!! Here are the voices 
http://www.forvo.com/word/ant/#en


----------

