# pronunciation: -t- between vowels in AE and BE



## Dinnerout

Hi guys!

I'd like to know the differences in pronunciation between american and english of the following words:

water

better

letter

latter

Someone can help me?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## VenusEnvy

Dinnerout said:
			
		

> I'd like to know the differences in pronunciation between american English  and British  english of the following words:



Is this what you wanted to say?


----------



## Markus

I assume you are referring to how the "tt" is pronounced. In North American English, the sound is pronounced as what is called a flap; it is similar to the Spanish single R (but not exactly the same), or a very quickly pronounced D. In British English, it is pronounced either as a glottal stop or as a T sound depending on the region (I believe it is the "posh" accent that produces as a T sound, but I am not sure, best wait for someone British for all the facts on their side of the Atlantic).

Markus


----------



## timpeac

Markus said:
			
		

> I assume you are referring to how the "tt" is pronounced. In North American English, the sound is pronounced as what is called a flap; it is similar to the Spanish single R (but not exactly the same), or a very quickly pronounced D. In British English, it is pronounced either as a glottal stop or as a T sound depending on the region (I believe it is the "posh" accent that produces as a T sound, but I am not sure, best wait for someone British for all the facts on their side of the Atlantic).
> 
> Markus


 
The standard British English pronunciation of a "t" between vowels is as a "t" (rather than the American flap which sounds so my ears quite like a "d") plus a little puff of air (aspiration) afterwards.

Some people would use glottal stops (cockney and some Scottish springs to mind) but this is viewed as a low register and looked down on by some. So, rather than the "t" pronunciation being posh I would say it is the glottal stop pronunciation which is low register since the "t" pronunciation is standard.


----------



## Benjy

http://www.research.att.com/projects/tts/demo.html

I don't know how useful it will be for your particular query but it's a handy site for pronunciation questions in general. 

Listening to the UK/US voices I think it shows the difference quite well. The only thing you can't sample is the glottal stop that has been mentioned.

Which reminds me ... last month I was at a cafe Rios in Draper Utah trying to tell the guy that I wanted water and not a soda. It was so bad =[ after three tries of trying to get the guy to understand my English my mate (also from England) tries going "waaddddddddeeeeerrrrrrr" and the guy next to us starts laughing. Arf. Needless to say we got our food and left in a hurry


----------



## jacinta

Dinnerout said:
			
		

> Hi guys!
> 
> I'd like to know the differences in pronunciation between american and english of the following words:
> 
> water
> 
> better
> 
> letter
> 
> *latter*
> 
> Someone can help me?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


As I go through this list, I have to say that this word, latter, I pronounce with the "t" distinctly because it needs to be distinguished from the word *ladder*.  The rest I pronounce as everyone says, with the "d" sound.


----------



## timpeac

In the book I'm reading there is a character called "Tcheda". The character says that this is "to rhyme with "cheetah"". This confused me for a while, as I was thinking why would you pronounce a "d" as a "t" when I realised that of course it was an American book, and so the author obviously expects people to pronounce cheetah with a "d"!


----------



## Benjy

I was going to ask that.. if you follow the link I posted and so both ladder and latter it is almost impossible to distinguish the two with the American voice.


----------



## jacinta

Benjy said:
			
		

> i was going to ask that.. if you follow the link i posted and so both ladder and latter it is almost impossible to distinguish the two with the american voice.


It's probably just a "me" thing.  I don't think it's universal.


----------



## duder

My pronunciation of "latter" and "ladder" is almost identical, but it is easy to tell which is which according to context.


----------



## JJchang

the pronunciation of water is distinctly different. BE is like o (reverse c in phonetic symbol), AE is a. The er is flat in BE.


----------



## kathy_wylie

also *latter*..

in Bristish english it is pronounced ' l-ah-t-ah' 

in American English it is pronounced 'l-ai-d-err' if you get what i mean


----------



## Outsider

The American Dialect Site.


----------



## timpeac

kathy_wylie said:
			
		

> also *latter*..
> 
> in Bristish english it is pronounced ' l-ah-t-ah'
> 
> in American English it is pronounced 'l-ai-d-err' if you get what i mean



er, no it's not Kathy, in neither case. Actually looking at it I think you might have meant "later" rather than "latter" so I won't comment on "latter" further until you confirm


----------



## LizzieUSA

I think there is a VERY subtle difference in the American pronunciation of "ladder" and "latter". There is just a _slight _aspiration after the "tt" in "latter". But you wouldn't notice unless you were looking for it. It's one of those things that makes people hard to understand on the phone....


----------



## katheter

no timpeac. i meant *latter*

well i suppose on which british english accent is pronouncing it, but there are english people who pronounce 'latter' by pronouncing the 'a' like 'ah' and the 'er' ending sounds like an 'a' too.

same case for the american pronunciation, depends what part of america! what i meant here is that americans sort of flatten to 'a' sound slightly which to me sounds like they've put an i in.


----------



## timpeac

katheter said:
			
		

> no timpeac. i meant *latter*
> 
> well i suppose on which british english accent is pronouncing it, but there are english people who pronounce 'latter' by pronouncing the 'a' like 'ah' and the 'er' ending sounds like an 'a' too.
> 
> same case for the american pronunciation, depends what part of america! what i meant here is that americans sort of flatten to 'a' sound slightly which to me sounds like they've put an i in.


 
Hmm, well I can't really comment on the US usage but in terms of the British usage it would only be quite a small minority of people who would pronounce it like that I think. Most would have an "a" like in "hat" I think.


----------



## mzsweeett

Wow what a discussion. _ I_ pronounce* latter *with a very soft "t" sound and *ladder *with a definite "d" sound.
If you were to ask my husband to say the same words...they sound exactly identical and you'd have to listen to the rest of the sentence to figure out what he meant.  ....BTW he is from Brooklyn NY...so that accounts for a lot.  In that area they have _very _different pronounciations from other places in the US. I am from Philadelphia and the difference is very obvious. It varies from region to region. We even say water like "woo-der" rather than "wa-ter". 

Sweet T.


----------



## JennR

I am an AF brat, so I've lived all over the US and even a short stint in Bermuda and have heard the various differences. My sister-in-law is from PA so when MzSweeett mentioned woo-der, all I could do is hear my 'sis' say "Yins" this is the Pittsburgh equivalent to y'all. She tried to mix one time and she ended up saying "Yins All". 

If I am feeling lazy, I will 'flap'. If I am trying to avoid picking up a regionalism, Lord preserve me from the MA accents, I annunciate and do the proper 'T' and 'D'. When I am with a group of Southerns, I revert and pick up my "native" accent.



			
				Benjy said:
			
		

> which reminds me.. last month i was at a cafe rios in draper utah trying to tell the guy that i wanted water and not a soda. it was so bad =[ after three tries of trying to get the guy to understand my english my mate (also from england) tries going "waaddddddddeeeeerrrrrrr" and the guy next to us starts laughing. arf. needless to say we got our food and left in a hurry



Just don't try to order a "soda" in New England. It's a tonic. You might end up with seltzer wadddddder.


----------



## mylam

JennR said:
			
		

> If I am feeling lazy, I will 'flap'. If I am trying to avoid picking up a regionalism, Lord preserve me from the MA accents, I *annunciate* and do the proper 'T' and 'D'. When I am with a group of Southerns, I revert and pick up my "native" accent.


 
Really??? Yes, it would be worthy of *announcement* to hear a fellow American *enunciate* the T and D properly!


----------



## JennR

*DOAH! *

Yeah...that's right...I am announcing that I enunciate!  

I was having one of those days -- Words that sound alike but are _clearly_ spelled differently.  

Thanks for keeping me humble.

Cheers, 

Jenn


----------



## hamlet

I don't know what this phenomenon is called but I wondered if there's a rule stating when it occurs. For instance you'd never say "I don_'d _know abou_d id" _(as a matter of fact you'd say aboud but not id). So, back to the question : is there a rule? Would you say "I ain'_d _ea_d_ing" or "I ain't ea_d_ing"? Thanks


----------



## tepatria

I always pronounce my ts and ds as written and do not substitute them. However, Canadians are accussed of saying "aboot" for "about".


----------



## JamesM

First of all, "I ain't eating" would sound like pretty poor English in much of the U.S.  In some regions it would be common in casual spoken English, but in many places it would sound "rural."

I don't think, as a general rule, that the "t" sound is very pronounced in AE. It falls somewhere between the "t" and "d" sound for many people. The word "butter", for example, is rarely pronounced so that it sounds like "but-ter"; the "t" is softer and closer to "budder", but still distinct from "budder" in the way many people speak. It's difficult to describe. "Ladder", for example, would sound different from "butter" when spoken by most people I know but the "t"s would not be explosive or crisp in "butter." 

I think the softening of the "t" happens most often when it's in the middle of a word. It's not completely a "d" sound, though. "heating" and "heeding" would not sound the same when spoken by most people I know, but "heating" would not sound nearly as crisp as if we were saying, "Hee ting" (some imaginary Chinese name).


----------



## Old Novice

I agree completely with JamesM.  I'd just add that the "middle of a word" t-softening phenomenon also sometimes occurs between a word ending in t and a word beginning with a vowel, which is where your "about it" example comes from, I believe.  Also, I am originally from a place where "ain't" was often heard, and in my experience, "ain't" always has had a distinct "t" sound at the end.


----------



## JamesM

It's very tricky.  In the case of a phrase like "let it out", I'd say the first "t" is softened the most, the second is more distinctly "t"-sounding, and the last "t" is clearly a "t".  Spoken quickly, it sounds to me like "leddit out", but not "leaded out", if you know what I mean.


----------



## tepatria

Perhaps we need a new category for English - Canadian English. The t is pronounced, I maintain. I would say that "a bit of bi*tt*er bu*tt*er will make the ba*tt*er be*tt*er." How about you?


----------



## Matching Mole

I believe this "d" like sound is called an alveolar tap or flap and is represented with ɾ in IPA. In this pronunciation "t" loses some or all of its plosive quality, which is retained by most British English speakers.

In the recent discussion of "data" it was noted that this effect occurs in varying degrees amongst AE speakers. I think this is prone to occur before reduced vowels (e.g. schwa).

In some British English accents it becomes a glottal stop instead of an alveolar tap.


----------



## JamesM

tepatria said:


> Perhaps we need a new category for English - Canadian English. The t is pronounced, I maintain. I would say that "a bit of bi*tt*er bu*tt*er will make the ba*tt*er be*tt*er." How about you?


 
If I am deliberately pronouncing it then, yes, I would say the 't" very distinctly and you would hear each one.  This is a common tongue-twister in AE as well.

If I'm irriated and calling to my child across the street, saying, "You'd better get over here right away", I think you would hear the 't" in "get" and "right" very distinctly, but "better" would sound somewhere between "bedder" and "bet-ter".


----------



## evaniax

JennR said:


> My 'sis' say "Yins" this is the Pittsburgh equivalent to y'all. She tried to mix one time and she ended up saying "Yins All".


 
I've heard it more as a "yuns" - but I loooooooved the "yins all." That is too awesome. She needs to find a way to add in the even more common (i.e., outside of "Picksburg" and the south ) "you guys." "All yuns guys?" "Yuns guys all?".... lol.



> Just don't try to order a "soda" in New England. It's a tonic. You might end up with seltzer wadddddder.


 
Tonic = soda?? That explains part of a TV show that made me feel WTF. To me, it's the exact opposite, tonic = soda water = seltzer water (I would only ever use "soda water"). Actually, if I heard someone ask for a "tonic," I would assume he wanted some sort of special medical drink (like an infusion of certain herbs). It's strange how many variations on terms for "soda" there are in the US, like "pop" in the Midwest... which is fine for me, since I haven't really had any in the last 10 years... lol.

Oh yeah, back to the original post. Yep, those are all flaps to me... but like most above, I distingish the t's and d's when absolutely needed or in a more formal setting... but I would really really have to focus to pronounce "water" with a t. You can even write it as a regular sound change:
(Am Eng) t,d > ɾ / V_V

The lightest flap for me is in "better" and "letter." I do tend to pronounce those more as t's (not quite, and certainly not aspirated).


----------



## natkretep

I just wanted to add that there is a fair amount of variation of a different kind in the UK. The choice is not only between an aspirated /t/ and a glottal stop. There could be unaspirated /t/ in, say, some Scottish accents. I have heard lots of accents of folks from Northern Ireland where a /d/ sound is normal. Even English speakers, when speaking informally, might produce something like 'bedder' for 'better', but this pronunciation will not be used all the time. There's a lot of 'bedder' in Australian English too, but you will also hear a lot of 'better' in more careful and formal contexts.


----------



## Paxal

Intervocalic 't' in AE is pronounced like a flapped 'r', close to an 'r'-sound in Spanish (single 'r' , not double) (as in "pero"). Whereas in BE, it is pronounced with the tip of one's tongue behind the teeth ridge (and not just behind the teeth as in French).


----------



## Paco_18

Hi everyone!

I have just been watching _The Picture of Dorian Gray_ (1975) and I noticed that the actors did flap some of the t's and d's in function words mainly. Should I trust my ears? I mean, I know British people flap the t's some times, but I had know idea about the d's. So how spread is the flapping of those sounds in the British Isles?

Thanks a lot!


----------



## Cagey

There have been earlier threads on the pronunciation of "t".  You can find them by searching for pronunciation t in the search box at the top of the page.  

I know too little about this to judge whether any of them are relevant to your question, but you might want to look them over.  Perhaps you will find this one interesting _[which Ewie has just merged with Paco's thread]._


----------



## ewie

Paco_18 said:


> Hi everyone!
> 
> I have just been watching _The Picture of Dorian Gray_ (1975) and I noticed that the actors did flap some of the t's and d's in function words mainly. Should I trust my ears? I mean, I know British people flap the t's some times, but I had know idea about the d's. So how spread is the flapping of those sounds in the British Isles?
> 
> Thanks a lot!


Hi Paco.  Can you think of any specific function words with 'flapped _*d*_'s' that you heard?

As a general comment: I agree with Nat [#23] that there's a good bit more variation in the pronunciation of BE intervocalic /t/ than we realize ... or are prepared to admit.  (I think I may have said before in this forum that I have heard people of _all_ ages, backgrounds, educations, etc. using glottal stops ... many of whom would never actually _admit_ to it if it was pointed out to them.)

And yes: I've heard BE-speakers flapping their _*-t-*_'s.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

As regards Hiberno-English, it would sound something like:

water - wah-terr

better - be-terr

letter - le-terr

latter - lah-terr

Hopefully that makes some sense, in any case, as the Irish are rhotic speakers, the R is always pronounced at the end, unlike English English.


----------



## timpeac

Pedro y La Torre said:


> As regards Hiberno-English, it would sound something like:
> 
> water - wah-terr
> 
> better - bet-err
> 
> letter - let-err
> 
> latter - lah-terr
> 
> Hopefully that makes some sense, in any case, as the Irish are rhotic speakers, the R is always pronounced at the end, unlike English English.


Are you sure that you mean to append the "t" to the first syllable in the middle two Pedro? Wouldn't it be more likely to be "be-terr", "le-terr"?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

timpeac said:


> Are you sure that you mean to append the "t" to the first syllable in the middle two Pedro? Wouldn't it be more likely to be "be-terr", "le-terr"?



Sorry, yes you're right.


----------



## pickarooney

Pedro y La Torre said:


> As regards Hiberno-English, it would sound something like:
> 
> water - wah-terr
> 
> better - be-terr
> 
> letter - le-terr
> 
> latter - lah-terr
> 
> Hopefully that makes some sense, in any case, as the Irish are rhotic speakers, the R is always pronounced at the end, unlike English English.



In some HibE accents... others would have a glottal stop, a heavily dentalised 'th' sound or a sibilant in place of the 't' .


----------



## diminished7th

At the end of the day, still I didn't grasp the idea! I'm pretty sure Americans say water as "wader" and pretty as "predy" and beauty as "beaudy".

I guess one rule can be for the words ending with "ty". If the t is preceded by a vowel it's pronounced as /d/ like:

reality
uniformity
beauty
pretty
obesity
intensity
treaty
city
density
variety
opportunity
quality
eighty five 

But in some other examples I don't know how to say the word to sound American like:

repetitive (the first t)
pattern
data
at a
better
about it
it doesn't matter
Beat it! (R.I.P Michael!)
later
latter

And in some others I guess the t is exactly pronounced as it is like:

native
status
greeting
hate her
letter
sit around
repeatedly
beat around the bush
parameters
waiting
fighting
eating
party
exotic
meeting


----------



## A.F.Ferri

This is basically a question of dialect.  In the vast region that is the Angloshpere the English language is used - and abused - in a variety of different ways.  In _proper_ English however, no instance comes to mind where you would pronounce a t as a d or vice versa.


----------



## boozer

diminished7th said:


> And in some others I guess the t is exactly pronounced as it is like:
> 
> native - nay-duv
> status - ??
> greeting - gree-deng
> hate her - hey-dur
> letter - ledr
> sit around -??
> repeatedly - ruh-peedud-ly
> beat around the bush - beed uh-rAun tha bush
> parameters - puh-ra-muh-durz
> waiting - way-deng
> fighting - fy-deng
> eating - ee-deng
> party - ??
> exotic - ?? - ig-za..
> meeting - mee-deng


Well, I find it hard to imagine how all of the above would be pronounced by the average US speaker, but I could distinctly imagine an American friend and colleague I once had saying those words as reproduced by me. I have in mind someone from Seattle (See-A-Dl)  The problem is I simply understood what she said but never paid attention to all the small details. And I myself speak differently.

I very much like A.F.Ferri's comments and fully agree. But it's not to say that Americans speak _improper_ English.  It's just different.


----------



## mplsray

A.F.Ferri said:


> This is basically a question of dialect.  In the vast region that is the Angloshpere the English language is used - and abused - in a variety of different ways.  In _proper_ English however, no instance comes to mind where you would pronounce a t as a d or vice versa.



In some accents spoken by speakers of a standard dialect--I don't know whether you consider "standard" equivalent to "proper"--the consonant in the middle of _butter_ and _water_ is the same as that in _budder_ and _wadder_ (I had to look them up to ensure that the latter two words are indeed listed in a dictionary). This is not, however, [d] but is instead an alveolar tap, [ɾ]. The consonant in the middle of _wader_, on the other hand, _is_ a [d] while that in the middle of _waiter_ is a [t].

My own accent, from the American Midwests, is an example of such an accent.


----------



## LV4-26

I distinctly remember Bogart saying
_Ged'm a drink uh' wader_
in a movie.

although the 'd' might actually be something between a 't' and a 'd'.

Also, Pete Seeger (or was it someone else?) wrote a song called
_Atom and Evil _ [Adam and Eve(l)]


----------



## jpyvr

When I was learning to teach ESL, my pronunciation teacher referred to this phenomenon as a "D flap." I don't know if that's a standard term or not, but I always found that the term was easily explainable to my ESL students and they were able to grasp it without much problem. I think as a teaching term, "D flap" is much easier on students than "alveolar flap."


----------



## entangledbank

No-one's mentioned stress yet. Here's my first go at a rule. The /t/ is flapped when:

(i) it's _not_ followed by a stressed syllable;
(ii) it's between vowels, or between one of /n l r/ and a vowel. (These can be across two words.)

So (i) excludes _retain, intend,_ etc., which have [t]. Probably this also explains the [t] in the 'it' of _let it out_, which in effect has the stressed syllable /taut/.

(ii) includes things like _winter, alter, party_, as well as _better, water, beating_. Not being an AmE speaker, I don't know how many people do flap their t's in these words. It tends to disappear entirely in /nt/ (_Toronto, continental_).

Studies have shown (if I recall rightly) that most AmE speakers can't reliably distinguish /d/ from flapped /t/ in normal speech. They used test sentences like:

The candidates for baptism were wai[ɾ]ing in the river.
The wounded sheep was blee[ɾ]ing by the fence.

But there can be differences even if the consonant is the same, [ɾ]. Voiceless stops shorten following vowels in English. The vowel of _beat_ is shorter than that of _bead_ or _bee_. Some flapping accents may apply shortening before underlying /t/ before turning /t/ into [ɾ], so for these accents there would be a length difference between _waiting_ and _wading_.

Also, Canadian English applies the Canadian diphthong change to /ai/ and /au/ before /t/ but not before /d/. So _writing_ and _riding_ have different vowels even though the /t ~ d/ difference is neutralized to [ɾ].


----------



## Packard

JamesM said:


> ... "Ladder", for example, would sound different from "butter" when spoken by most people I know but the "t"s would not be explosive or crisp in "butter." ...


 
I just spoke aloud "ladder" and "latter" and in my mind they sound different but as spoken they are very nearly the same.  But when I "say" them silently in my mind they are distinctly different.

My co-worker confirmed what I said and confirmed that she spoke them nearly identically too.

I think it is pretty easy to convince ourselves that we are speaking as spelled, but a tape recording may put a lie to that notion.


----------



## JamesM

They are very similar but they are written differently in phonetics and there is a distinction. 

This site (thanks for the info, Cagey!) is in our Resources for the English Only forum. It is a great place to hear multiple regional accents in varieties of English around the world. You can listen to "better" and "needle" in the American recordings to hear the difference. They _are_ very similar but there is a different sound.


----------



## berndf

Packard said:


> I think it is pretty easy to convince ourselves that we are speaking as spelled, but a tape recording may put a lie to that notion.


It is not only that. The distinction between fortis and lenis plosives (_p_ vs. _b_, _t_ vs. _d_, _k_ vs. _g_) is not a clear cut dichotomy but a threshold on a continuous scale (called VOT). Different languages, dialects and accents define this threshold differently. Depending on one's dialect, the same sound may be perceived as a _d_ or as a _t_ by different people, if the VOT is close to the threshold value. By and large (there are many _if_s and _but_s depending on phonetic context - syllable onset or code; stressed or unstressed syllable) the threshold is higher in BE than in AE, i.e. sound which an AE speaker may still identify as a _t_ a BE speaker may already identify as a _d_.

For those who are interested, there are several threads in EHL about this topic, in particular these two: click and click.


----------



## clevermizo

Just my two cents as an American:

1) T and D are always flapped in casual speech, and the phonology is that they are flapped in *unstressed*, *intervocalic *environments, which can cross word boundaries.

2) T is clearly voiceless and aspirated in stressed environments such as _retain, pertain, contain_ as well as word or phrase-initially.

3) To flap the /t,d/ is normal and casual, however it is also done at formal register, unless it is desirable to make a certain word sound unambiguous.



entangledbank said:


> (ii) includes things like _winter, alter, party_, as well as _better, water, beating_. Not being an AmE speaker, I don't know how many people do flap their t's in these words. It tends to disappear entirely in /nt/ (_Toronto, continental_).



_Winter_ has two possible pronunciations: win.terwith an unflapped _t_ (the "n" is not really vocalic), or with the _t_ elided as a homophone of _winner_. Trying to pronounce the sequence [nɾ] is next to impossible for me.

_Alter_ is not pronounced with a flapped /t/ or at least I don't think it ever is. The _l_, though quasi-vocalic, seems to block what would be a flapping environment. I'm trying to think of other words with the words _ld_ or _lt_ and in no case can I come up with a flap. The _t_ and _d_ are full stops, with the _t_ aspirated.

_Party_ has a flapped _t_ as post-vocalic, coda _r_ is a vowel coloration in American English and not a consonant phoneme. 

_Better, water  _and _beating _all contain flaps as the _t_ is intervocalic.


For what it's worth, my pronunciations of _latter_ and _ladder_ are identical, and context determines which is meant. Also, many of us do pronounce our _t_s and _d_s as [t] and [d] and not as flaps to distinguish them when necessary. Some of us who are a little more well-traveled tend to "affect" a proper [t] and [d] when confronted with individuals who are non-native speakers of English and with whom the flap might create some confusion.

Also, the flap in AmE is identical to the single, flapped _/r/_ of Spanish. It "feels" like there is a slight difference only due to orthographic bias. We really think we say a "t" when we pronounce a word like _letter_.


----------



## berndf

clevermizo said:


> Also, the flap in AmE is identical to the single, flapped _/r/_ of Spanish. It "feels" like there is a slight difference only due to orthographic bias. We really think we say a "t" when we pronounce a word like _letter_.


I almost agree with you but a bit of a doubt remains. The inter-vocalic "r" in RP English is like this (/r/). Do you think that e.g. RP "berry" could be confused with AE "Betty"? I think I still can hear and feel a difference. The closure in AE "Betty" is slightly longer and firmer than in RP "berry".


----------



## timpeac

berndf said:


> I almost agree with you but a bit of a doubt remains. The inter-vocalic "r" in RP English is like this (/r/). Do you think that e.g. RP "berry" could be confused with AE "Betty"? I think I still can hear and feel a difference. The closure in AE "Betty" is slightly longer and firmer than in RP "berry".


I don't think that the standard British pronunciation of "berry" sounds at all like (what I hear to be) the American pronunciation of "Betty".

I would be wary of standard phonetic symbols in this area - rolling and flapping "r"s is indicative of a very outdated accent in my part of the world (it's reminiscent to me of accents of older, posh, people in films that themselves are now old).


----------



## natkretep

timpeac said:


> I don't think that the standard British pronunciation of "berry" sounds at all like (what I hear to be) the American pronunciation of "Betty".



I agree that you wouldn't mistake 'berry' in England for American 'Betty'. In Scotland, though, 'r' could be an alveolar approximant (like in much of England) or alveolar trill or an alveolar tap - so there is just the possibility for the confusion in the case of some accents of Scottish English - and of course, if you have the word IN ISOLATION.


----------



## berndf

timpeac said:


> I don't think that the standard British pronunciation of "berry" sounds at all like (what I hear to be) the American pronunciation of "Betty".


I totally agree. In modern British Standard English the intervocalic "r" is approximant and not a tap or short trill any more as it was in RP which is certainly an outdated standard today.


----------



## pickarooney

berndf said:


> I almost agree with you but a bit of a doubt remains. The inter-vocalic "r" in RP English is like this (/r/). Do you think that e.g. RP "berry" could be confused with AE "Betty"? I think I still can hear and feel a difference. The closure in AE "Betty" is slightly longer and firmer than in RP "berry".



To my ears the Scouse (Liverpool) pronunciation of 'berry' and the American pronunciation of 'Betty' are indistinguishable.


----------



## dl77

The one time this pronunciation confused me was when I was watching the Abbott and Costello film _Ride 'em Cowboy_. There was a character in it who'd written a successful series of cowboy novels, and who was marketed as a real cowboy, but was really only a bookstore cowboy. There was a scene that didn't make sense to me at all because he was talking about how he became a _rider_. I then figured out that he was talking about how he became a _writer_.

In my own Irish accent, the pronunciation of the _t_ in _writer_ is definitely a fricative rather than a stop. In fact, it's probably a fairly close approximation to put the tongue in the same place as for a _t_ and then to let the air out slowly rather than in a burst.


----------



## Hello_America

I didn't want to start a new thread (I read the forum sticky note) so I'll resurrect this thread since it pertains to my issue.

In general, when it comes to American English, do Americans pronounce their /t/ (water, latter) - as a /d/ (rid, drip) sound? So instead of pronouncing the /t/ consonant, water becomes wa-/d/a. Is this common in America? 

I'm wondering because I know numerous people who pronounce their /t/s, sometimes it's soft, while others the /t/ is exchanged for a /d/. I personally pronounce my /t/s, but it's soft, when it comes to a word like water. Sometimes it's a strong /t/, and a friend said that "that's not how Americans speak (in general)."


----------



## berndf

As has been said before, the intervocalic _-t-_ and _-d-_ merge into a single sound in casual American pronunciation which is neither a "real" /d/ nor a "real" /t/. I think post #50 explains it exhaustively.

Apart from this special case of intervocalic _-t-_ and _-d-_, a /t/ at the start of an unstressed syllable may be perceived as /d/ by speakers of a variety of English where people aspirate all their /t/s (except in the compound /st/ as in _start_) as it is the case in standard British English (RP) because American speakers generally don't aspirate /t/ at the beginning of an unstressed syllable.


----------



## Forero

How we pronounce _tt_ in _latter_ and _dd_ in _ladder_ depends on how fast we are speaking and with what level of care.

Where I live, when we speak in a relaxed manner, neither quickly as in an argument nor carefully as in a formal speech, _tt_ and _dd_ are both flapped/tapped. I am not sure which of these terms is which, but the effect is similar to but different from the single _r_ of Spanish or Italian, and not at all like a double _rr_. Nevertheless, the _tt_ is unvoiced, and the _dd_ voiced, so _latter_ and _ladder_ do not sound the same.

But when we speak quickly, the flapped/tapped _tt_ becomes voiced and sounds exactly like the flapped/tapped _dd_. Thus the two words sound exactly alike in rapid speech, though not with a frank _d_ sound.

I think this only happens to _t_ and _d_ between a stressed vowel or diphthong and an unstressed vowel, or between a stressed vowel or diphthong + <_n_ or _r_> and an unstressed vowel. We of course pronounce the _r_, if present, as a modification of the vowel or offglide. We usually realize the _n_, if present, as mere nasalization of the previous vowel or offglide or of the flap/tap itself, or of both.

I have heard people from other parts of the U.S.A. pronounce, for example, _twenty_ with a frank _d_ sound, which sounds wrong to me. The closest it gets to having a _d_ sound when I pronounce it is the aforementioned flap/tap, voiced in rapid speech.


----------



## flear

hamlet said:


> I don't know what this phenomenon is called but I wondered if there's a rule stating when it occurs. For instance you'd never say "I don_'d _know abou_d id" _(as a matter of fact you'd say aboud but not id). So, back to the question : is there a rule? Would you say "I ain'_d _ea_d_ing" or "I ain't ea_d_ing"? Thanks



Yes. There is. In american english, the t has the "d" sound when it occurs in between two vowels. For example prEttY (two vowels sound). Better (another two vowels). You say aboud iT (not aboud id) cause in that case, about, is in between two vowels the "ou" and the i from it.


----------



## natkretep

The additional rule is that the /t/ must be at the end of a stressed syllable - so the voiced consonant is in _eater_ but not _atune_​.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Two asides:


Someone asked what this phenomenon is called - *voicing of intervocalic dentals*.
Someone said that context will help decide. Well, no. How about: _He was offered the choice of a ladder or a hoist; he took the la*er_. Latter or ladder? And how about _writer _and _rider _in post #56? A British speaker will be quite explicit on this point; an American will leave his listener in some doubt.

And so I don't entirely disgaree with A.F.Ferri (#41) who called for "proper" pronunciation, because the American version here is simply less effective in transmitting meaning.


----------



## JulianStuart

Keith Bradford said:


> Two asides:
> 
> 
> Someone asked what this phenomenon is called - *voicing of intervocalic dentals*.
> Someone said that context will help decide. Well, no. How about: _He was offered the choice of a ladder or a hoist; he took the la*er_. Latter or ladder? And how about _writer _and _rider _in post #56? A British speaker will be quite explicit on this point; an American will leave his listener in some doubt.
> 
> And so I don't entirely disgaree with A.F.Ferri (#41) who called for "proper" pronunciation, because the American version here is simply less effective in transmitting meaning.



In my experience, having moved from one environment to the other, it is actually quite rare for this to cause real ambiguity in everyday life, as opposed to in pronunciation threads.  In the same way omitting the r in a word by non-rhotic speakers rarely causes ambiguity - generating more wisecracks about accent than causing confusion.  Both issues do, however, show up when learners of English try to understand the subtleties from books

(Bearing in mind that a a US quart is about 1,000 ml, the issue was used humorously by a local "green/organic" dairy known for its billboards: This one showed a cartoon cow in idyllic green pasture, holding up a quart carton of milk and the caption ran "a natural born liter"!)


----------



## JamesM

Keith Bradford said:


> Two asides:
> 
> 
> Someone asked what this phenomenon is called - *voicing of intervocalic dentals*.
> Someone said that context will help decide. Well, no. How about: _He was offered the choice of a ladder or a hoist; he took the la*er_. Latter or ladder? And how about _writer _and _rider _in post #56? A British speaker will be quite explicit on this point; an American will leave his listener in some doubt.
> 
> And so I don't entirely disgaree with A.F.Ferri (#41) who called for "proper" pronunciation, because the American version here is simply less effective in transmitting meaning.



"Proper" -- a loaded word, if ever there was one.    What is "proper" about adding an "r" sound to words like "data"?   Is this not also ambiguous?  "Dater" / "Data"?   There are several BE speakers I have heard where the two words are indistinguishable.  It's very easy to see how _other_ people's dialects are not "proper" English.


----------



## Keith Bradford

I'm not making a generalisation about British or American usage.  I am making a generalisation about usage that clarifies meaning and that which obscures meaning.  I prefer the former, not the la*tt*er.


----------



## wandle

So do I. For that reason, I also prefer clear pronunciation of the letter 'r' where present and avoidance of it where absent.
It seems that 't's fare better to the east and 'r's to the west of the Atlantic.


----------



## skymouse

In informal speech, I pronounce the "t" inconsistently.

Sometimes I use an unvoiced /t/ sound as in standard British english. Sometimes I use a glottal stop. However I'm more like to use a glottal stop when the t comes at the end of the word than in the middle, e.g "what have you done?" is almost certain to have a glottal stop, whereas "butter" is less likely to.

 Other times, I use a consonant sound that I think is slightly voiced and nearer to an approximant than a standard /t/ sound (but never a voiced flap like the American version).


----------



## JamesM

Keith Bradford said:


> I'm not making a generalisation about British or American usage.  I am making a generalisation about usage that clarifies meaning and that which obscures meaning.  I prefer the former, not the la*tt*er.



So a dialect that pronounces father and farther, stalk and stork, alms and arms, larva and lava, source and sauce, torque and talk the same is the one that exemplifies clarity in meaning through pronunciation?


----------



## Keith Bradford

JamesM said:


> So a dialect that pronounces father and farther, stalk and stork, alms and arms, larva and lava, source and sauce, torque and talk the same is the one that exemplifies clarity in meaning through pronunciation?



Not insofar as those words are concerned, no.  (But we're going off-topic.)


----------



## JamesM

No, I don't think we are.  There is no single dialect in English that I'm aware of that pronounces all the letters in English words.  Your point was that you preferred clarity and that those who distinguished between ladder and latter were those who spoke "proper" English because of its clarity.

There is no "proper" English if clarity is the measurement of propriety.  All forms of English are ambiguous in some form or another.  It's simply easier to see how someone else's form is ambiguous. There are ambiguities in all forms.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Isofar as the intervocalic -t- is concerned (the subject of this thread), the dialects that distinguish between /t/ and /d/ are preferable to those that don't, because they are clearer, less ambiguous.  Since the difference between /t/ and /d/ is a conveyor of meaning in English, this is important.  You seem to be making a case for slurring any old consonant with any other, just because no dialect is perfect, but I'm sure that's not your intention.


----------



## JamesM

Yes, but the point is that the dialects that distinguish between /t/ and /d/ have their own ambiguities in other areas.  It's a package deal.  The same dialect that has the distinction between /t/ and /d/ has merges other sounds (see above) that other dialects don't. 

If you were to construct a dialect that made distinctions between all consonants and all vowel combinations it would be an artificial dialect that no one actually speaks.  You would have clarity but you would not be speaking a form of English that any native English speaker speaks.

I don't think we can make the case of "preferable" or "proper".  Every dialect has its idiosyncracies.  What we can say is that in one dialect there is a clear distinction between "latter" and "ladder";  in another dialect there is a clear distinction between "father" and "farther".  When you choose the clarity of one set you lose the clarity of another somewhere.

Would you actually write on a thread about the "father / farther" distinction that the "proper" or "preferable" dialect is the one that makes this distinction?  If so, how is this useful?  Because if you choose that dialect you lose the "ladder / latter" distinction. If you wouldn't call it preferable or proper, your logic is not consistent.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Now, how would you advise a foreign speaker? Many - perhaps most - of the people on this site are learners of English as a foreign language. I would say:

"Choose whichever dialect variant is most clear in the given context; don't worry about consistency. JamesM is locked into California and I'm locked into the English Midlands. But your priority as a foreign speaker is, in the first instance, to make yourself understood."

(He'll probably end up sounding like Edinburgh.)


----------



## JamesM

I had a German language teacher who had learned British English in university, had then moved to Greece and learned other words there, then New York City, then Chicago, then Texas, and finally Idaho.  I can tell you that her "dialect" was more confusing than any known dialect.   One sentence would have words with a dropped "r", a twang, a nasal tone with a bright vowel, and a dark "aw" all mixed together.

I would _not_ advise a foreign speaker to mix and match dialects in order to pick and choose the one that is the most clear in the given context.  I would say that there are trade-offs in any dialect.  Pick one and master it.  Just be aware that they all have ambiguities.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I have the impression, for some reason, that American English is easier to understand for foreigners than other dialects. Like others have said, I'd go with the accent/dialect you feel most comfortable with.

Your aim should always be to pronounce as clearly as possible; chances are you'll never successfully imitate a native English accent, but a well-spoken foreigner can sound just as good, if not better. There's nothing worse than overdoing it to the point that you become incomprehensible to all but yourself.


----------



## Cenzontle

> I think there is a VERY subtle difference in the American pronunciation of "ladder" and "latter".


Some linguists claim that the *consonants *are the same, but that the *vowel *"a" of "ladder" is slightly *longer*.


----------



## mplsray

I would advise anyone learning English as a foreign language who wished to learn an American accent to learn to make the alveolar tap.


----------



## JulianStuart

I retain the BrE distinction between t and d (I have a hard time doing a subtle flap, and a non-subtle one sounds odd) but I am pronouncing r's more than I used to in the UK (the wisecracks and needing to explain the non-rhotic pronunciations of words just became too tedious).  My "neither here nor there*" accent is strong BrE to Americans (the vowels also remain BrE) and very strong American to my family in the UK.  So perhaps someone who wants to avoid ambiguity should mix and match as I do (and eschew the vowel mergers too!) , but if you want to sound "American" or "British" you will need to accept that some words will be unclear to the others

*I was brought up short when I first heard Bill Bryson read some of his work - he sounded just like me.


----------



## JamesM

Cenzontle said:


> Some linguists claim that the *consonants *are the same, but that the *vowel *"a" of "ladder" is slightly *longer*.



That makes sense to me.  If I stretch the "a" in "Latter Day Saints" (the Mormons) it instantly sounds like "Ladder Day Saints".  

It might be worth pointing out that American English speakers will pop their "t" sounds in certain situations.  It's done when there is confusion about the word being used, when speaking publicly (for some people), when explaining something to a child, and when angry but trying to maintain control.  This leads to an interesting problem where some AE speakers interpret some BE speakers as being either testy or condescending when they are simply speaking in their normal accent.


----------



## timpeac

JulianStuart said:


> I retain the BrE distinction between t and d (I have a hard time doing a subtle flap, and a non-subtle one sounds odd) but I am pronouncing r's more than I used to in the UK (the wisecracks and needing to explain the non-rhotic pronunciations of words just became too tedious).  My "neither here nor there*" accent is strong BrE to Americans (the vowels also remain BrE) and very strong American to my family in the UK.


I think this is generally how it works - I've come across similar instances several times of this. I suppose that we only hear "differences" and so if you have a mixture of BE and AE features then the Brit will note the AE ones and the American the BE ones.

I agree with James - I would not advise foreign speakers to switch dialect, but pick one and stick to it. Native speakers can't switch dialects consistently so it seems a bit unfair to expect foreign speakers to. Slightly tangential point, but this put me off Spanish slightly when I was learning it. I realised that I had about 10 different words for the word "bag" in my vocab book depending on which Spanish-speaking country was involved. Picking one variety was definitely the way forward for my sanity!


----------



## natkretep

Has anyone heard of English as a Lingua Franca? Among the advocates is Jennifer Jenkins, professor in Southampton University, and she advocates a kind of mixed accent - almost a kind of nobody's accent - for the purposes of teaching international students for the purposes of international communication. I think her proposal is to teach a rhotic accent and that /t/ should be voiceless. She also maintains that some distinctions don't matter (so the _th_ consonants in _thin_ and _this_ could be replaced with _s_ and _z_, for example) but others do (so the vowel length distinction in say _sin_ and _seen_ needs to be reinforced). So, JS, with your accent, you might be in favour with Professor Jenkins!


----------



## timpeac

natkretep said:


> Has anyone heard of English as a Lingua Franca? Among the advocates is Jennifer Jenkins, professor in Southampton University, and she advocates a kind of mixed accent - almost a kind of nobody's accent - for the purposes of teaching international students for the purposes of international communication. I think her proposal is to teach a rhotic accent and that /t/ should be voiceless. She also maintains that some distinctions don't matter (so the _th_ consonants in _thin_ and _this_ could be replaced with _s_ and _z_, for example) but others do (so the vowel length distinction in say _sin_ and _seen_ needs to be reinforced). So, JS, with your accent, you might be in favour with Professor Jenkins!


The arguments for this seem to be the same as for any lingua franca. I think we all still aspire to more than pure communication when learning a language - i.e. cultural references etc. It's true that, for example, replacing unvoiced "th" with "s" would not particularly impede comprehension (yes there would be some homophone created but not so many the language couldn't cope in my opinion) but that's just not what the language does. Artificial lingua franca's have proved singularly unpopular so far, and I don't think one based on English would change that.

If we were to pick one _based _on a language, then surely one based on Latin would be a good choice since all the Romance speakers would be covered, or a Chinese version. I don't see why you would pick English for this use - particularly as English seems to be quite a forgiving language for "getting pronunciation wrong" as long as the way you "get it wrong" is consistent.


----------



## JulianStuart

natkretep said:


> Has anyone heard of English as a Lingua Franca? Among the advocates is Jennifer Jenkins, professor in Southampton University, and she advocates a kind of mixed accent - almost a kind of nobody's accent - for the purposes of teaching international students for the purposes of international communication. I think her proposal is to teach a rhotic accent and that /t/ should be voiceless. She also maintains that some distinctions don't matter (so the _th_ consonants in _thin_ and _this_ could be replaced with _s_ and _z_, for example) but others do (so the vowel length distinction in say _sin_ and _seen_ needs to be reinforced). So, JS, with your accent, you might be in favour with Professor Jenkins!


Kewl!
While I may claim to be ambiguous or unclear less often than users of either of my parent accents, I think the value of the familiarity aspect (of either one to its users) is often underestimated by the Lingua angla proponents (who wants to speak in franca?).  Unless there's an immediately apparent, good reason to start speaking differently, such changes will not come about in the majority, no matter how beneficial they may be to overall communication.  (A.k.a., "What's in it for me?"). Not many changes occur to the species, that don't also benefit the individual.  The closest thing we may get to such a Lingua seems to be texting language - rumoured to be based loosely on English . Even there, pronunciation doesn't matter much, so flap or not, rhotic or not, merged vowels or not etc are largely invisible.  Until we get to the point where everyone travels around the globe frequently, the flap t will remain in America and most of the non-rhotics will be elsewhere,  communicating adequately.  Lingua angla- good idea in principle, but ain't gonna happen. (Sorry, it's getting late here).


----------



## wandle

I agree with *timpeac's* point that people notice the differences between accents, while ignoring the similarities.

My father was Scottish, but lived most of his life in England. His accent (not dialect) changed gradually so that eventually he sounded English to the Scottish, while still sounding Scottish to the English. 
He insisted that the letter 'r' should be pronounced clearly and that is what I have always done, though it brought me a little ribbing from my schoolfellows (but no 'correction' from my teachers).

Consistency is an important factor in teaching and learning. It is distinctly easier to teach that the letter 'r' should always be pronounced as such than to say it should sometimes be silent or treated like an 'h' (e.g. "paht" instead of 'part') or a 'w' (e.g. "waw" instead of 'war').
Similarly, it is easier to teach that 't' is always unvoiced and that 'd' is always voiced, but that otherwise the two consonants are formed the same way.
To me, it makes sense to combine those two practices in teaching English.


----------



## wandle

On the other hand, the proposal of Jenkins and Seidlhofer to establish a new way to teach English to Europeans does not seem sensible to me.

Their argument is that certain distinctions, particularly of pronunciation, do not matter for effective communication in English between, say, a Dane and a Greek, or between a Pole and a Spaniard. Therefore they say that ELFE (teaching of English as a foreign language for Europeans) should not spend time on refining pronunciation or grammar in ways that make little difference to mutual intelligibility between non-native speakers of English who are themselves from different countries, one from another. This seems to me mistaken in several ways. 

First, it does not seem likely that the learners would only want to communicate with other non-native speakers of English. They very probably do want to be able to communicate effectively in Britain and the US and the other countries around the world where English is the first language.

Secondly, within Europe, the differences which characterise English as spoken by one nation will differ from those characteristic of other nations. Whatever choice is made in selecting from those differences to compose the new European version of English, the result will still be a pattern which is different from that of each individual nation. They will still have difficulties to face, but instead of learning an authentic foreign language, students will be learning an artificial one. 

Thirdly, in the proposed European version of English various points of distinction are lost, compared to native English, not only in pronunciation but also in grammar, vocabulary and idiom. This involves a definite reduction in the expressiveness and accuracy of the language. If these students need to produce or merely to understand English of a good business, academic or literary standard, then they will have to learn the true language in any case. In my view, it is better to study the real thing from the beginning. 

Fourthly, if a dedicated European version of English ought to be taught to Europeans, then by the same token a dedicated Indian version ought to be taught to Indians, a Chinese version to Chinese, and so on. This process will lead not to a lingua franca but to several different languages all claiming to be valid English.


----------



## Nino83

JamesM said:


> In the case of a phrase like "let it out" [...] Spoken quickly, it sounds to me like "leddit out"





entangledbank said:


> *(i) it's not followed by a stressed syllable;*
> *(ii) it's between vowels*, or between one of /n l r/ and a vowel. (These can be across two words.)





natkretep said:


> The additional rule is that *the /t/ must be at the end of a stressed syllable* - so the voiced consonant is in _eater_ but not _atune_​.



Seen these rules, now I understand why the word _attitude_ is pronounced [ˈæ*ɾ*ɪtuːd] but why is _reality_​ pronounced as [ri:ælɪ*ɾ*ɪ]? 
In this case the /t/ is not immediately post-tonic. Is it an exception?


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Seen these rules, now I understand why the word _attitude_ is pronounced [ˈæ*ɾ*ɪtuːd] but why is _reality_​ pronounced as [ri:ælɪ*ɾ*ɪ]?
> In this case the /t/ is not immediately post-tonic. Is it an exception?


I don't think natkretep stated the rule correctly. The /t/ in _atune _is unvoiced (and aspirated, for that matter) because it is the onset of a stressed syllable and not because it follows an unstressed syllable.


----------



## Nino83

So why is the /t/ of _reality_ flapped while that of _attitude _is a normal stop?


----------



## Forero

Nino83 said:


> So why is the /t/ of _reality_ flapped while that of _attitude _is a normal stop?


They are both (optionally) flapped. Neither begins a stressed syllable.


----------



## Nino83

Forero said:


> They are both (optionally) flapped. Neither begins a stressed syllable.



So is it correct to say [ˈæ*ɾ*ɪ*ɾ*uːd]?


----------



## JamesM

To me the last "t" is not flapped, but that may be my regional (California) accent.  To say something like "addidude" would be difficult for me, but "additude" is perfectly normal.


----------



## Nino83

JamesM said:


> To me the last "t" is not flapped, but that may be my regional (California) accent.  To say something like "addidude" would be difficult for me, but "additude" is perfectly normal.



Thank you, James. This is what cambridge dictionary says. 
So nobody knows why the (last) /t/ of _attitude_ is a stop and the /t/ of _-ty_ words is flapped. 

Thanks anyway


----------



## berndf

To make things more complicated, there are three and not just two realizations of /t/: unvoiced aspirated, unvoiced non-aspirated and flapped. The 3rd is an optional variant of the 2nd but never of the 1st. That is why flapping cannot occur in _atune_. Comming back to natkretep's rule, I'd say that flapping is more _likely _to occur after stressed syllables than after unstressed syllables. I actually doubt that flapping is likely to occur in _reali*t*y_. For me (German native language and having learned British rather than American English), the unvoiced non-aspirated and the flapped /t/ are difficult to distinguish; they both naturally sound like "d" to me and I have to listen very carefully to hear the difference. I'd be interested to read native AE speakers' opinions how likely flapping is in _reali*t*y_.


----------



## Forero

Nino83 said:


> Thank you, James. This is what cambridge dictionary says.
> So nobody knows why the (last) /t/ of _attitude_ is a stop and the /t/ of _-ty_ words is flapped.
> 
> Thanks anyway


I was talking about the _tt_ of _attitude_ , not the _t_ of _-tude_, which carries secondary stress. The _-ty_ in _reality_ is unstressed.

It is also to be noted that a lot of us AmE speakers pronounce the last syllable of _attitude_ as "tood", not "tyood", while we pronounce the last syllable of _statue_ as "choo" and the last syllable of _statute_ as "choot".





berndf said:


> To make things more complicated, there are three and not just two realizations of /t/: unvoiced aspirated, unvoiced non-aspirated and flapped. The 3rd is an optional variant of the 2nd but never of the 1st. That is why flapping cannot occur in _atune_. Comming back to natkretep's rule, I'd say that flapping is more _likely _to occur after stressed syllables than after unstressed syllables. I actually doubt that flapping is likely to occur in _reali*t*y_. For me (German native language and having learned British rather than American English), the unvoiced non-aspirated and the flapped /t/ are difficult to distinguish; they both naturally sound like "d" to me and I have to listen very carefully to hear the difference. I'd be interested to read native AE speakers' opinions how likely flapping is in _reali*t*y_.


I believe you left out flapped unvoiced (as opposed to flapped and voiced).

In my AmE, the unvoiced unaspirated alveolar stop and the unvoiced alveolar flap are unambiguously _t_ sounds, not _d_ sounds, but the voiced alveolar flap is ambiguously _t_ or _d_.

By the way, these flaps are not quite the same as Italian _r_ (or English flapped _r_) sounds.


----------



## Nino83

Forero said:


> I was talking about the _tt_ of _attitude_ , not the _t_ of _-tude_, which carries secondary stress. The _-ty_ in _reality_ is unstressed.



Thank you for the answer. So is it right to say that intervocalic _t_ is flapped in all post-tonic syllables (excluding those having secondary stress)? 
It is a working rule in AE? 



Forero said:


> By the way, these flaps are not quite the same as Italian _r (or English flapped r) sounds._



I agree. The Italian/Portuguese flapped (single) _r_ is more trilled (Spanish one is a little more lenited).


----------



## berndf

Where would you distinguish between non-aspirated unvoiced stop and unvoiced flap?

Yes, I agree. The flapped voiced /t/~/d/ is not the same as the flapped intervocalic /r/ in traditional RP.


----------



## Cagey

berndf said:


> Where would you distinguish between non-aspirated unvoiced stop and unvoiced flap?
> 
> [....]


I'm in over my head here, but I believe we distinguish between them in order to distinguish between medal and metal.  (On the other hand, I may be mistaken in thinking that _metal _is non-aspirated in AE.)


----------



## timpeac

Something else to note for the BE pronunciation (that I don't think has been mentioned in this long thread, apologies if so) is that the British intervocalic /t/ also stands out from /d/ because it is affricative (at least lightly) - almost like pronouncing a "ch" but further forward in the mouth and further forward on the tongue, whereas the /d/ is not. I suppose this is because there is so much aspiration.


----------



## berndf

Cagey said:


> I'm in over my head here, but I believe we distinguish between them in order to distinguish between medal and metal.  (On the other hand, I may be mistaken in thinking that _metal _is non-aspirated in AE.)


Thank you. My question was specifically where non-aspirated unvoiced and unvoiced flapped differ. In _metal _for those speakers who don not merge it with _medal_, /t/ could be described as either. I would be interested in a case where the distinction mattered.


----------



## Forero

Nino83 said:


> Thank you for the answer. So is it right to say that intervocalic _t_ is flapped in all post-tonic syllables (excluding those having secondary stress)?
> It is a working rule in AE?


The flapped _t_ is never obligatory, but I believe it is optional in all unstressed post-tonic syllables.





> I agree. The Italian/Portuguese flapped (single) _r_ is more trilled (Spanish one is a little more lenited).


Consider also the Spanish _r_-_rr_ opposition. In Spanish, the single _r_ is flapped, the _rr_ is trilled, and neither is quite the same as the AmE flapped _d_ or _t_.





berndf said:


> Thank you. My question was specifically where non-aspirated unvoiced and unvoiced flapped differ. In _metal _for those speakers who don not merge it with _medal_, /t/ could be described as either. I would be interested in a case where the distinction mattered.


I don't think any of us always merges _metal_/_mettle_ with _medal_.

Where I come from, we make the distinction wherever we feel the need, for example in an especially formal speech or when the voiced flap might cause misunderstanding or confusion.

Merger is especially useful for making jokes (e.g an "udder disaster" for a milk cow, or someone with precious metal in his medal for being on his mettle), and the distinction is useful for preventing inadvertent jokes.


----------



## berndf

Forero said:


> I don't think any of us always merges _metal_/_mettle_ with _medal_.


I never tried to imply that. Sorry, it my formulation should have been misleading.



Forero said:


> Where I come from, we make the distinction wherever we feel the need, for example in an especially formal speech or when the voiced flap might cause misunderstanding or confusion.
> 
> Merger is especially useful for making jokes (e.g an "udder disaster" for a milk cow, or someone with precious metal in his medal for being on his mettle), and the distinction is useful for preventing inadvertent jokes.


You still haven't answered my question: Why and under which circumstances should it be necessary or useful to distinguish not only the three realizations of /t/ I mentioned but a fourth one, viz. _unvoiced flap_. I.e.: Why und under which circumstances would it be necessary or useful to distinguish between an _unvoiced non-aspirated stop_ and an _unvoiced flap_?


----------



## Forero

berndf said:


> I never tried to imply that. Sorry, it my formulation should have been misleading.
> 
> You still haven't answered my question: Why and under which circumstances should it be necessary or useful to distinguish not only the three realizations of /t/ I mentioned but a fourth one, viz. _unvoiced flap_. I.e.: Why und under which circumstances would it be necessary or useful to distinguish between an _unvoiced non-aspirated stop_ and an _unvoiced flap_?


It is useful when we discuss phonetics as opposed to phonemics.

The phonemic distinction is between voiced and unvoiced.

In the environments in which _t_ can be flapped in AmE, the aspirated/nonaspirated and stop/flap dimensions are nonphonemic, except inasmuch as the voiced flap is phonemically ambiguous.

Where I live, the voiced aspirated alveolar stop and the voiced unaspirated alveolar stop (even if unreleased) are unambiguously /d/, and their unvoiced counterparts, as well as the unvoiced flap, are unambiguously /t/.

I do not know where, but there is a variety of AmE that uses what I call an unambiguous /d/ stop in the words _twenty_ and _ninety_, but where I live, we usually use a nasalized vowel and flapped /t/ in these words. If we voice the flapped /t/, it sounds "like a _d_" only inasmuch as it becomes phonemically ambiguous.


----------



## berndf

Forero said:


> It is useful when we discuss phonetics as opposed to phonemics.


Ok, I see. I did indeed concentrate on distinctions that have at least potential phonemic repercussions.


Forero said:


> The phonemic distinction is between voiced and unvoiced.
> 
> In the environments in which _t_ can be flapped in AmE, the aspirated/nonaspirated and stop/flap dimensions are nonphonemic, except inasmuch as the voiced flap is phonemically ambiguous.


Ok. Just to be sure, we are still talking only about intervocalic stops, right? I ask this because I am not sure this statement is true for inital stops in stressed syllables. As I said, my ear is not very reliable because in my native language voicing of stops does not matter at all. But my impression still is that unvoiced unaspirated realization of initial /d/ for stressed syllables (and therefore relying on energy and aspiration for /d/-/t/ separation) occurs as regularly as it does in other Germanic languages in this positions.


----------

