# pronunciation: 'TU' in English [also: t + you ---> 'ch']



## KMH

Hello all,

I am currently teaching English in Mexico and my students picked up on the way I pronounce certain words which begin with, or contain, tu.
I am British and they are used to learning English from the US. 

In words such as Tuna, Tune, Tuesday, Tulip it is pronounced as 'ch' whereas is words such as Tunnel, Turn, Tub it is pronounced as t. 

Does anyone know why this is? Is it to do with the origin of the words?

Thanks,
Kieran.


----------



## neal41

KMH said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I am currently teaching English in Mexico and my students picked up on the way I pronounce certain words which begin with, or contain, tu.
> I am British and they are used to learning English from the US.
> 
> In words such as Tuna, Tune, Tuesday, Tulip it is pronounced as 'ch' whereas is words such as Tunnel, Turn, Tub it is pronounced as t.
> 
> Does anyone know why this is? Is it to do with the origin of the words?


 
The 'u' in the second set of words is short/lax, whereas the 'u' in the first set is long/tense. The 't' in the first set is NOT pronounced like 'ch' in 'church'. A front on-glide like the 'y' in 'yes' may be inserted between the 't' and the 'u' in the case of stressed tense 'u'. So 'tune' may be [tun] or [tyun] and 'tulip' may be [tulip] or [tyulip]. Webster's Collegiate seems to indicate that the preferred pronunciation is without the inserted on-glide.


----------



## Infininja

None of those would have a "ch" sound where I'm from. I hadn't heard of this and am now curious!

A "y" sounds more appropriate, as neal suggests. (I still wouldn't pronounce them with one, but could understand hearing it.)


----------



## pogomole

KMH said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I am currently teaching English in Mexico and my students picked up on the way I pronounce certain words which begin with, or contain, tu.
> I am British and they are used to learning English from the US.
> 
> In words such as Tuna, Tune, Tuesday, Tulip it is pronounced as 'ch' whereas is words such as Tunnel, Turn, Tub it is pronounced as t.
> 
> Does anyone know why this is? Is it to do with the origin of the words?
> 
> Thanks,
> Kieran.


 
I believe that the difference is in the pronunciation of the u, not the t. The u in tune is pronounced oo in AE but sometimes you in BE. The attempt to blend the t and you sounds creates the approximate ch sound. Tyoun.

Cheers, tally ho and pip-pip, Old Sport!


----------



## pogomole

I see that neal41 had this one wired. He said it better, too.


----------



## natkretep

The 'ch' sound is to do with assimilation. I heard a lot of this when I was in Scotland. The combination of the 't' sound and the 'y' sound often results in the 'ch' sound. 

Some of these have become standard. For example, the spelling of lec*ture*, litera*ture* tells you that originally this would have been pronounced -tyoor. (You occasionally hear some British speakers say 'lektyoor' and 'literatyoor', but these are often dismissed as toffs. Most people would say 'lekcher' and 'literacher'.)

Combinations across words also result in this assimilation. If you say, 'Set your heart at ease' quickly, you are likely to say 'Setchor heart at ease'.

It is therefore, not surprising to generalise the 'ch' pronunciations for other occurrences of 't'+'y' like 'tune' (tyoon), causing it to be pronounced chyoon. From the responses so far, this might be less acceptable in AmE, so you might want to tweak your pronunciation.

You get a similar thing happening with the 'd' + 'y' combination resulting in a 'j' sound. I once misunderstood someone who was trying to say 'dune', but came out as 'june'.


----------



## neal41

natkretep said:


> The 'ch' sound is to do with assimilation. I heard a lot of this when I was in Scotland. The combination of the 't' sound and the 'y' sound often results in the 'ch' sound.
> 
> Some of these have become standard. For example, the spelling of lec*ture*, litera*ture* tells you that originally this would have been pronounced -tyoor. (You occasionally hear some British speakers say 'lektyoor' and 'literatyoor', but these are often dismissed as toffs. Most people would say 'lekcher' and 'literacher'.)
> 
> Combinations across words also result in this assimilation. If you say, 'Set your heart at ease' quickly, you are likely to say 'Setchor heart at ease'.
> 
> It is therefore, not surprising to generalise the 'ch' pronunciations for other occurrences of 't'+'y' like 'tune' (tyoon), causing it to be pronounced chyoon. From the responses so far, this might be less acceptable in AmE, so you might want to tweak your pronunciation.
> 
> You get a similar thing happening with the 'd' + 'y' combination resulting in a 'j' sound. I once misunderstood someone who was trying to say 'dune', but came out as 'june'.


 
The [ch] in 'lecture' or 'literature' may be due to the fact that 'u' is not stressed. In my dialect [ch] does not occur as the pronunciation of 't' before stressed tense 'u'.

I note that I do insert [y] in many words like 'Tuesday', 'tune', 'dew', 'tulip', but that I always say [tuna] without an inserted [y]. If tense  is spelled 'oo' as in 'tool', 'tooth', 'maroon', 'moon', it is never the case that an on-glide is inserted.


----------



## natkretep

neal41 said:


> The [ch] in 'lecture' or 'literature' may be due to the fact that 'u' is not stressed. In my dialect [ch] does not occur as the pronunciation of 't' before stressed tense 'u'.
> 
> I note that I do insert [y] in many words like 'Tuesday', 'tune', 'dew', 'tulip' ...


 
So the t+y -> ch rule applies to unstressed syllables but not stressed syllables for Neal, whereas KMH's accent allows for the rule to apply to stressed syllables as well.

Neal: there is no way you would introduce a 'ch' sound in saying 'not YET' then. But could you have in in 'NOT yet'? Similarly a 'j' sound in 'would YOU' and 'WOULD you'?


----------



## pickarooney

neal41 said:


> The [ch] in 'lecture' or 'literature' may be due to the fact that 'u' is not stressed. In my dialect [ch] does not occur as the pronunciation of 't' before stressed tense 'u'.
> 
> I note that I do insert [y] in many words like 'Tuesday', 'tune', 'dew', 'tulip', but that I always say [tuna] without an inserted [y]. If tense  is spelled 'oo' as in 'tool', 'tooth', 'maroon', 'moon', it is never the case that an on-glide is inserted.




Sorry if this seems picky, but generally when square brackets are used, they contain IPA symbols whereas you're using them around 'English' letters and it's quite confusing to read. For example [y] is the German 'ü' sound, whereas [j] is the English 'y' sound.

I think KMH's original question on the reason for the different pronunciations for the groups of words given was clearly answered by your good self and any discussion on the rightness or wrongness of pronouncing 'tune' as 'choon' is not really constructive - in some accents it's the case, in others it's not.


----------



## neal41

natkretep said:


> So the t+y -> ch rule applies to unstressed syllables but not stressed syllables for Neal, whereas KMH's accent allows for the rule to apply to stressed syllables as well.
> 
> Neal: there is no way you would introduce a 'ch' sound in saying 'not YET' then. But could you have in in 'NOT yet'? Similarly a 'j' sound in 'would YOU' and 'WOULD you'?


 
It would be helpful to have a clarification from KMH about his/her pronunciation. Does he/she really say [chun] for 'tune' or is it [tyun], where [ch] is the sound is 'church'? Scotland has been mentioned. Is KMH from Scotland?

In a previous message I mentioned my dialect. Probably it would have been better to say 'idiolect'. There's a lot of individual variation in cases like [tun] and [tyun] for 'tune'.

In the case of 'not YET' and 'WOULD you' I would normally use the affricates [ch] and [j], respectively. However, they aren't examples of what we are talking about. In the case of 'would YOU' I probably would not use the affricate, but I might.


----------



## KMH

Thanks very much to everyone!

Nakretep seems to have really understood what I was getting at and drawing on your dune/june example I would pronounce both words in exactly the same way.

I have a pretty standard London accent, it's not RP by any stretch of the imagination. The correct RP of tune is probably 'tyune' but as is the case with British English almost nobody speaks like that. 

It seems that in order for the word to be pronounced with the 'ch' sound the u has to be stressed, and similar to 'oo'

Thanks very much once again, there were some really interesting replies.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I side with pickarooney on his point about IPA, it's a system introduced to completely avoid ambiguity when talking about sounds yet we're labelling left, right and centre things that are wrong.
[j] is not an affricate, however the English '*j*' in '*j*udge / *j*azz' is an affricate, its IPA symbol is [dʒ].



> In words such as Tuna, Tune, Tuesday, Tulip it is pronounced as 'ch' whereas is words such as Tunnel, Turn, Tub it is pronounced as t.


Yep, completely agree, the first set have "ch" [tʃ] in and the last set just plain "t" [t].


----------



## Wayland

natkretep said:


> You get a similar thing happening with the 'd' + 'y' combination resulting in a 'j' sound. I once misunderstood someone who was trying to say 'dune', but came out as 'june'.


 
I remember having this conversation in the 60s when Elvis sang "jevver have one of those days where, jevver have one of those days?" Was he singing " do you ever" or "did you ever"?

I would say_ tyube_ and recognise it as being British whereas _toob_ would be thought to be American.


----------



## Infininja

Is "tune" as in a song and "toon" as in "cartoon" pronounced differently in Britain? I think I would pronounce those both the same, with no English 'y' sound.


----------



## natkretep

Infininja said:


> Is "tune" as in a song and "toon" as in "cartoon" pronounced differently in Britain? I think I would pronounce those both the same, with no English 'y' sound.



As far as I am aware 'tune' and 'toon' are always distinguished in BrE.



KMH said:


> I have a pretty standard London accent, it's not RP by any stretch of the imagination. The correct RP of tune is probably 'tyune' but as is the case with British English almost nobody speaks like that.



Yes, come to think of it, it's probably more widespread than I suggested. If you go to the pronunciation site Forvo and listen to the two pronunciations of 'tune' (click for the link), you'll hear a version given by an American (tyoon) and an Australian (chyoon). [OK, I take the point of those who want IPA: these would be [tjuːn] and [ʧjuːn] respectively.]

More interestingly, for tube, the British speaker says 'tyoob' [tjuːb], the American speaker says 'toob' [tuːb] and the Australian speaker 'chyoob' [ʧjuːb].


----------



## neal41

natkretep said:


> More interestingly, for tube, the British speaker says 'tyoob' [tjuːb], the American speaker says 'toob' [tuːb] and the Australian speaker 'chyoob' [ʧjuːb].


 
What you describe as British pronunciation is also very common in the US. My pronunciation is not entirely consistent, but I generally say [tjuːb]. I do not recall ever hearing the Australian pronunciation. If KMH uses that pronunciation I can easily understand the confusion of her Mexican students.


----------



## BatMaster

It is not uncommon at all for [t] and [d] to become affricatives [tʃ] and [dʒ] when followed by certain phones (consonants, glides) in rapid speech.  As was initially shown with *tune*, when pronounced with a glide as [tju:n] can easily morph into [tʃju:n] in less-careful speech.  This is probably a result of the palatalization of the [j] glide, which causes the [t] to 'pull back' or 'slip' a little.

This also happens frequently in American English when [t] or [d] is followed by [ɹ].  An example is *train*, which is commonly heard as [tʃɹejn], and might be aurally indistinguishable from a hypothetical word *chrain*.  Again, the nature of the following consonant pulls the [t] back from its usual alveolar location resulting in the affricative sound.


----------



## Infininja

natkretep, you hear 'tyoon' from the American speaker whereas I hear 'toon.' Maybe the 'y' is so quick I'm just not noticing it, but the way she says it is pretty close to how I say it.

I agree the Australian speaker has a 'y' sound in addition to the 'ch.'



I listened to the pronunciations of "cartoon" on that site and do notice the slight difference, though I don't hear a 'y' sound still. The 't' simply seems stressed a little more in "tune" as opposed to "cartoon."



Edit: BatMaster: I agree that the 't' in train is _closer_ to a 'ch' sound, but I don't think it makes the leap to be the same as 'chrain.' Perhaps it's my lack of knowledge of the International Phonetic Alphabet that make me think about it a little differently.


----------



## natkretep

Infi: yes, I thought there was a slight glide in 'tune' by the American speaker.

'Toon' never has the 'y' glide in BrE. 

Getting a bit off-topic, but in general, I think anything with the spelling <oo> or <ou> will not have the glide in BrE (noon, moon, fool, route). The glide is often (but not always) found in words spelt <u>, <ue> or <u_e>: in _cute _and _mute _but not in _lute _or _rule_. The versions with and without are possible in _super_, _suit_. In the past, the name _Susan_ could be pronounced with the glide, but not today.


----------



## Infininja

It is definitely there in "cute" and "mute," but I still don't hear it in "tune." Sounds like the 't' just gets a little extra stress.


----------



## Forero

Where I live, most people pronounce the words _tuna_, _tune_, _Tuesday_, and _tulip_ with the same sound ([tu] approximately) as in _too_. But I also hear [tju], usually from people from south and east of here, and, once in a long while, [tʃu], for example from one friend from New Jersey.

I think the "original" pronunciation was [tju] ("tyoo", sort of a Middle English attempt at French _tu_ [ty]), and now some drop the [j] ("y" sound) and others combine it with the [t] to get something like "ch".

Unstressed "tū", as in _situation_, usually sounds like "chu".

I think the spelling _oo_ never has the initial _y_ sound, and _ou_ almost never does (_coupon_ is an exception). The beginning of the "y"-less "oo" also has some variants (e.g. [ɨu̯], [ɪʉ]) that sound a lot like a "yoo" sound to those not accustomed to them.


----------



## pickarooney

natkretep said:


> Infi: yes, I thought there was a slight glide in 'tune' by the American speaker.
> 
> 'Toon' never has the 'y' glide in BrE.
> 
> Getting a bit off-topic, but in general, I think anything with the spelling <oo> or <ou> will not have the glide in BrE (noon, moon, fool, route). The glide is often (but not always) found in words spelt <u>, <ue> or <u_e>: in _cute _and _mute _but not in _lute _or _rule_. The versions with and without are possible in _super_, _suit_. In the past, the name _Susan_ could be pronounced with the glide, but not today.



There's also the -ew spelling such as 
news, (BrE with glide, AmE without)
mews, (both with glide, I think)
few, (both with glide)
dew (BrE with glide, AmE without)*
crew (both without glide)

*I'm not sure how the partial homophone 'due' is pronounced in AmE, but I think it's one of those that varies from East to West and North to South


----------



## BatMaster

Here's another interesting facet of the discussion: In the US, it is standard in both English sung diction and stage diction to insert [j] glides after the alveolar stops [t] and [d] in words which wouldn't normally be pronounced here as such when the texts are British in origin.  (Plays by Shakespeare and songs by Henry Purcell fall into this category.)

For instance:
*lute* - sung as [lju:t], normally pronounced here as [lu:t]
*dew*/*due* - sung as [dju:], normally heard in my dialect as [du:] and homophonous with *do*

One could argue that this is done to make the texts sound more 'British'.  Regardless of whether that is the reason, or if this actually makes a more 'British' sound, it is standard practice here and has been for a very long time.

(NB that to not complicate the issue unnecessarily I am using  to stand for the letter _u_ as it is pronounced by most speakers in the Western US, which technically isn't a pure  at all but closer to [y]!!)


----------



## BatMaster

Forero said:


> I think the "original" pronunciation was [tju] ("tyoo", sort of a Middle English attempt at French _tu_ [ty]), and now some drop the [j] ("y" sound) and others combine it with the [t] to get something like "ch".



What's also interesting to see that while many of the words that have been used as examples here are French-derived, not all of them are.  For instance *new* and *few* both come from Old English roots.  I think the modern insertion or lack thereof of a [j] glide before  in a word may come from three possible sources:

1) influence of French letter _u_ (pronounced [y])
2) natural physical sound changes which can both introduce a glide and/or affricitavization when certain consonants are followed by a high vowel
3) coalescence and application of these causes to other similar yet etymologically-unrelated words

Thus I think the one's pronunciation of _tu_ is a result of a few factors: the word's etymology, its similarity to other words, and also the spelling.  I'm not sure if I'm of the opinion that one can make a rule as to how _tu_ is pronounced based on any one of these factors alone.

Isn't English great?!


----------



## iminipimini

natkretep said:


> So the t+y -> ch rule applies to unstressed syllables but not stressed syllables for Neal, whereas KMH's accent allows for the rule to apply to stressed syllables as well.
> 
> Neal: there is no way you would introduce a 'ch' sound in saying 'not YET' then. But could you have in in 'NOT yet'? Similarly a 'j' sound in 'would YOU' and 'WOULD you'?


I completely agree with your analysis but I would say that this pronunciation is also evolving. I can hear myself saying something approaching notchét these days.

My perception is (and I may be wrong) that this does not happen in the USA because their "t" sounds much more like a "d" nadyét


----------



## Alxmrphi

Good analysis imini..
I agree about the American thing (though by no means an expert) I would imagine that changes the sounds in connected speech.

I tried your 'notchét' - I do hear that sometimes but my version of it in connected speech completely deletes the 't', I insert a stop in between the 't' and the 'y' - but miss out the 't' if that makes sense..in IPA it'd look something like this-> /nɒ'jeʰ/.

I would have thought the deletion of the 't' was more comman than keeping the 't' and inserting the 'ch' sound. Interesting!


----------



## bspielburg

iminipimini said:


> My perception is (and I may be wrong) that this does not happen in the USA because their "t" sounds much more like a "d" nadyét



I always say "notchette" or "gnaw yet".  From what I have heard, in America if the T is at the end of the word, it is either pronounced as-is or is not pronounced, but it's not said as a D.


----------



## Forero

In my dialect:

Between a stressed vowel sound and a unstressed vowel sound, a _t_ may be flapped and a flapped _t_ may be voiced so that it sounds like a flapped _d_ (_little_, _forty_). This can even happen with an _n_ between the stressed vowel and the _t_ (_ninety_, _Monty_).

A "y" sound, as in "yoo" for long _u_, acts as a liquid consonant and thus prevents a previous _t_ from being flapped and thus generally prevents it from sounding like a _d_.

A rare exception is the word _congratulations_, with a "j"-like sound. I do not think this is due to voicing of the _t_ itself but a mishearing of the "ch"-like sound and confusion with other words like _graduations_.


----------



## natkretep

Alxmrphi said:


> I tried your 'notchét' - I do hear that sometimes but my version of it in connected speech completely deletes the 't', I insert a stop in between the 't' and the 'y' - but miss out the 't' if that makes sense..in IPA it'd look something like this-> /nɒ'jeʰ/.



Hmm, do you use use glottal stops at the end of _not _and _yet_?

Another word illustrating the stressed TU but not at word-initial position is MATURE.

I use the 'ch' [t∫] sound here, but I sometimes hear 'ty' [tj]. Is 't' possible for AmE [mə'tuːr]?


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Hmm, do you use use glottal stops at the end of _not _and _yet_?



Yep, but I can't comment on how common it is for others.



> Another word illustrating the stressed TU but not at word-initial position is MATURE.
> I use the 'ch' [t∫] sound here, but I sometimes hear 'ty' [tj]. Is 't' possible for AmE [mə'tuːr]?



Hmm good example, I can't actually decide what I'd say, probably the [t∫] example.


----------



## JamesM

natkretep said:


> Hmm, do you use use glottal stops at the end of _not _and _yet_?
> 
> Another word illustrating the stressed TU but not at word-initial position is MATURE.
> 
> I use the 'ch' [t∫] sound here, but I sometimes hear 'ty' [tj]. Is 't' possible for AmE [mə'tuːr]?


 
Yes, it is possible, but I hear the "ch" sound used more often in this word.  Merriam-Webster Online lists the ['tu:r] version first.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Pronunciation: \mə-ˈtu̇r, -ˈtyu̇r _also_ -ˈchu̇r\


Hi James, I just looked in the dictionary, I was quite surprised!
I only thought [t∫ɔː] / [tjɔː] were possible endings.

Is anyone else also surprised that there is no [ɔː] ? (the sound of the word '*or*') listed in the dictionary?

[Edit]: Cambridge lists /məˈtj*ʊə*r/   /-ˈtʊr/ which also isn't right for me, but it's ok I found a wiki page that deals with */ʊə/* and states:



> In some accents, several of the words on this page are pronounced ending in -ɔː(r). See also "the pure/poor split" (at Wikipedia).


I guess my accent is just one of those. I thought it was more common to be included in a dictionary though, hmm I learned something new!


----------



## Seventh

KMH said:


> Hello all,
> In words such as Tuna, Tune, Tuesday, Tulip it is pronounced as 'ch' whereas is words such as Tunnel, Turn, Tub it is pronounced as t.
> 
> *Does anyone know why this is? Is it to do with the origin of the words?*



If you're asking how to tell when to use which pronunciation, as a very general rule, when the sound is 'oo' you say 'you', and when the sound is 'uh', you say, well, 'uh'.

All of your examples, "tuna, tune, tuesday, tulip", have a 'you' sound.
and all of "tunnel, turn, tub" have an 'uh' sound. 
In the way I speak British English, at least!


----------



## Alxmrphi

Exactly Seventh, it's confusing to describe because English uses exactly the _same letters_ to talk about different _sounds_. That's where the confusion mainly comes from I think, so using IPA is good to illustrate phonetical differences.


----------



## Seventh

Yes, we don't make working out pronunciation from spelling very easy, do we?

I would like to add the comment that in the case of 'tune/toon': 
* I would say 't-you-n' because it has a 'u', which gives me the 'you' sound.
* and 't-oo-n', because 'toon' just has a raw 'oo' sound.


----------



## Infininja

Seventh said:


> Yes, we don't make working out pronunciation from spelling very easy, do we?
> 
> I would like to add the comment that in the case of 'tune/toon':
> * I would say 't-you-n' because it has a 'u', which gives me the 'you' sound.
> * and 't-oo-n', because 'toon' just has a raw 'oo' sound.



I would pronounce the made-up words (as far as I know) "une" and "oon" the same as each other. I don't think the letter 'u' implies there _should_ be a 'y' sound. 

(I'm not saying BE speakers say it wrong, I just don't think that's a rule to live by.)


----------



## Loob

Infininja said:


> I would pronounce the made-up words (as far as I know) "une" and "oon" the same as each other. I don't think the letter 'u' implies there _should_ be a 'y' sound.
> 
> (I'm not saying BE speakers say it wrong, I just don't think that's a rule to live by.)


I've avoided this thread so far, but it strikes me that Infininja's post contains a classic example: I know no-one who would pronounce "rule" with a [j].


----------



## larpman

It has been nearly 5 years since the last reply, but I thought I'd enter my own observations. Watching BBC TV I have noticed a CH pronunciation at the beginning of the word Tuesday. This does not occur in American English. In the US, tu is pronounced CHOO only *un*stressed syllables, but never the first syllable.

So, the TU is pronounced CHOO in mature, nature, Portuguese and picture, but not in Tuesday or return.

As a retired ESL teacher I can state what the original poster has found: Much of what an experienced teacher knows about English comes from observations and questions of intelligent students. 

I am from a Portuguese-American family. When I was a boy, a neighbor girl said, “My mother told me that you are pork and cheese.”


----------



## natkretep

larpman said:


> So, the TU is pronounced CHOO in mature, nature, Portuguese and picture, but not in Tuesday or return.


No BrE speaker would use CHOO in _return_ though as the vowel involved is ER rather than OO.


----------



## Forero

larpman said:


> It has been nearly 5 years since the last reply, but I thought I'd enter my own observations. Watching BBC TV I have noticed a CH pronunciation at the beginning of the word Tuesday. This does not occur in American English. In the US, tu is pronounced CHOO only *un*stressed syllables, but never the first syllable.
> 
> So, the TU is pronounced CHOO in mature, nature, Portuguese and picture, but not in Tuesday or return.
> 
> As a retired ESL teacher I can state what the original poster has found: Much of what an experienced teacher knows about English comes from observations and questions of intelligent students.
> 
> I am from a Portuguese-American family. When I was a boy, a neighbor girl said, “My mother told me that you are pork and cheese.”


My friend's mother pronounced _Tuesday_ with a _choo_ sound, and she is from New England (New Jersey).


----------



## duvija

Forero said:


> My friend's mother pronounced _Tuesday_ with a _choo_ sound, and she is from New England (New Jersey).


----------



## Cenzontle

> It seems that in order for the word to be pronounced with the 'ch' sound the u has to be stressed, and similar to 'oo'


Did you mean *un*stressed?  _Nature_ > "naycher"; _literature _> "litter-a-cher"; _fortune _> "for-chun"; ...


> It is definitely there in "cute" and "mute," but I still don't hear it in "tune." Sounds like the 't' just gets a little extra stress.


American English maintains the distinction  / [ju] (and this [j] is IPA for the "y-sound") 
after labial (front of mouth) and velar (back of mouth) consonants, but not dental or alveolar (middle of mouth) ones.
Labial:  food/feud, poor/pure, booty/beauty, moot/mute.
Velar:  coot/cute.
Dental/alveolar:  cartoon/tune, soup/super, tooter/tutor, noon/neutral.


----------

