# Doubled occlusive utterance-initially



## Saley

Hello, everybody!

Can there be any audible difference between single and doubled voiceless occlusives when they stand in the beginning of an utterance?

In some languages a doubled consonant may start a phrase. For example, in Russian it happens when consonantal prefixes *в-* /v-/, *с-* /s-/ or prepositions *в* /v/, *к* /k/, *с* /s/ are followed by a similar consonant belonging to word stem: e.g. *вверх* /vʲvʲerx/ ‘upwards’, *сзади* /ˈzzadʲi/ ‘from behind’, *к кому* /kkaˈmu/ ‘to whom’, *с собой* /ssaˈboj/ ‘with oneself’. Of them only *к* /k/ is occlusive.
In Neapolitan there are roots commencing with a doubled consonant: e.g. *cchiù* /kkju/ (< Latin _plus_) ‘more’, *cchiummo* /ˈkkjummə/ (< Latin _plumbum_) ‘lead’, *mmangià* /mmanˈd͡ʒa/ (< French _manger_) ‘food’.

Since occlusives begin with a pause, long and short ones are differentiated phrase-internally on the basis of its (i.e. pause’s) duration.
Concerning voiced occlusives in the beginning of speech (e.g. /*b*, *d*, *g*/), the phonation time during the occlusion allows to tell long and short sounds apart.
But what about voiceless occlusives phrase-initially (e.g. /*p*, *t*, *k*/)? Are phonemically long and short ones phonetically the same? I think *к кому* /kkaˈmu/ and *кому* /kaˈmu/ in Russian sound identically despite they are produced differently, i.e. different duration of the occlusion doesn’t lead to different sounds.

This reminds me of the situation with anacrusis in music: whether the leading pause is written or not, the listener will hear the same melody.

What do you think?


----------



## berndf

I hear the realization of /kk/ in _cchiù _as an aspirated_ k._


----------



## Ihsiin

In vernacular Arabic this distinction is possible, for example بيته _bēta _'his house' vs ببيته _bbēta _'in his house'. One can hear the difference, though I think the latter might be assisted with a mini micro-vowel.


----------



## bearded

Ihsiin said:


> the latter might be assisted with a mini micro-vowel.


Hello Ihsiin
Can you please explain that better? Do you mean something like bibeeta?


----------



## Ben Jamin

Is it correct to call /v/ an occlusive consonant?

In Polish there is a clear audible difference between initial double and single /v/, /z/, /s/.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> Is it correct to call /v/ an occlusive consonant?


The OP didn't:


Saley said:


> Of them only *к* /k/ is occlusive.


----------



## Nino83

Saley said:


> Can there be any audible difference between single and doubled voiceless occlusives when they stand in the beginning of an utterance?


Yes, it's possible.  
For example, in Sicilian speech we don't pronounce the initial "a" in verbs like _accattari, attuppari, aḍḍumari, abbagnari_, and then they begin with a long consonant, i.e [k̚k]attari, [t̚t]uppari, [ɖ̚ɖ]umari, [b̚b]agnari. Also _cchiù_ is pronounced [k̚k]iù.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Yes, it's possible.
> For example, in Sicilian speech we don't pronounce the initial "a" in verbs like _accattari, attuppari, aḍḍumari, abbagnari_, and then they begin with a long consonant, i.e [k̚k]attari, [t̚t]uppari, [ɖ̚ɖ]umari, [b̚b]agnari. Also _cchiù_ is pronounced [k̚k]iù.


That answers only part or the question. The real mystery is how this could possibly be realised in a way that it is audible for unvoiced stops.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> The real mystery is how this could possibly be realised in a way that it is audible for unvoiced stops.


Vocaroo | Voice message => _ccattu_ (I buy) vs. _cuttu_ (short)
Vocaroo | Voice message => _ccà_ (here) vs. _ca_ (no meaning, a syllable)


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> The real mystery is how this could possibly be realised in a way that it is audible


In my humble opinion the long/double consonant is only audible (even in dialects of Southern Italy) if the preceding word ends with a vowel:  therefore not really ''at the beginning of an utterance''.
Take for example the word _cchiù : _in _Nun te reggo (regghe) cchiù - _a song _-  _the 'long' c  is audible, but if you start by _cchiù bbella 'e te _it is not audible, and you only hear the 'long' b (translations: I can't bear you any more / more beautiful than you, respectively).


----------



## Nino83

A sample phrase with a double consonant at the beginning of an utterance.
Vocaroo | Voice message => _ccattasti u cafè?_ (comprasti il caffè?) 

edit: 
I registered two words on forvo, so that they will be always available.  
ccatta "compra!" "buy!" (imperative) 
catta "carta" "paper"


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> A sample phrase with a double consonant at the beginning of an utterance.
> Vocaroo | Voice message => _ccattasti u cafè?_ (comprasti il caffè?)
> 
> edit:
> I registered two words on forvo, so that they will be always available.
> ccatta "compra!" "buy!" (imperative)
> catta "carta" "paper"


The question remains how this is relealised in a way that makes it audible. In this example there are clearly two "clicks" The first one might either be a release of the first /k/ or an audible closure due to pre-aspiration.


Nino83 said:


> Vocaroo | Voice message => _ccattu_ (I buy) vs. _cuttu_ (short)
> Vocaroo | Voice message => _ccà_ (here) vs. _ca_ (no meaning, a syllable)


Here I hear in both cases [kʰ] vs. [k].

In either case, there is a strong difference in energy between /kk/ and /k/.


----------



## Ihsiin

bearded said:


> Hello Ihsiin
> Can you please explain that better? Do you mean something like bibeeta?



More like _(i)bbēta_, though to be honest the initial vowel, if it is indeed there, is so reducded that it's difficult to tell it's quality.


----------



## berndf

Ihsiin said:


> More like _(i)bbēta_, though to be honest the initial vowel, if it is indeed there, is so reducded that it's difficult to tell it's quality.


Could it be described as pre-aspiration? [ɦbb-]?


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> In either case, there is a strong difference in energy between /kk/ and /k/.


Until you don't release the consonant there are no audible sounds. 
What I do is to put pressure (with air) against the palate and then, after some time I release. Due to the preceding pressure, yes, the sound is stronger, with more energy (and maybe with some aspiration due to this energy, but I'm not sure if  there is more aspiration here  or if it is the same of the short consonant).  
This is what I do.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> What I do is to put pressure (with air)


So there is pre-aspiration?


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> So there is pre-aspiration?


I think there isn't. I move the air that there is in the mouth against the palate only moving some muscules.
It's not like pronouncing [x] and stopping it. There is no sound.
The movement I do is the same I do before the single [k] but after that move I don't release it immediately, I hold that position for some time and then I release.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> It's not like pronouncing [x] and stopping it.


That is different from pre-aspiration.


Nino83 said:


> There is no sound.


What makes it audible for you?


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> What makes it audible for you?


Mh...nothing.
I think the initial movement is the same of the unreleased stops in English, like in _ba*ck* panel_. What makes it audible for you? Difficult to say what it is.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> What makes it audible for you?


In _cchiù _here (cchiù pronunciation: How to pronounce cchiù in Neapolitan) and here:


Nino83 said:


> Vocaroo | Voice message => _ccattu_ (I buy) vs. _cuttu_ (short)
> Vocaroo | Voice message => _ccà_ (here) vs. _ca_ (no meaning, a syllable)


I hear (post-) aspiration supported by energy. Much like the difference between my (Northern German) /k/ and /g/. (PS: Will measure the VOTs when I am at home.)


Nino83 said:


> A sample phrase with a double consonant at the beginning of an utterance.
> Vocaroo | Voice message => _ccattasti u cafè?_ (comprasti il caffè?)


I hear a click-like sound where I would expect the closure, hence my question about pre-aspiration.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> I hear a click-like sound


Oh, sorry, it was my tongue. I was swallowing my saliva before speaking.  


berndf said:


> I hear (post-) aspiration supported by energy.


Yes. If I had to say which is the main difference I'd say energy. "Cca" is stronger (more attack, more volume) than "ca". I think the preceding holding can cause some little post-aspiration too.  

Also in these samples (both Neapolitan and Sicilian), I hear some post-aspiration. 
Pronunce per ccà in Napoletano (da ccá a ccà)


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Yes. If I had to say which is the main difference I'd say energy. "Cca" is stronger (more attack, more volume) than "ca". I think the preceding holding can cause some little post-aspiration too.


So, you say energy is the primary difference and post-aspiration is an artefact and not the other way round as I described it. As the two go usually hand in hand, I suppose it doesn't matter too much.


----------



## Nino83

Yes, I think it doesn't matter. Energy, attack, aspiration. That is.


----------



## Saley

I asked a person to say _кому_ and _к кому_ many times in random order so that I guess what they say. Generally I did recognize _к_ and _кк_, but several times I was wrong. So the difference exists in Russian, but it isn’t very significant.

I agree that a doubled occlusive is tenser than a single one. When I try to say /kk/, the tongue is pressed against the palate stronger and probably with a larger surface, involving more back parts of the tongue than in the case of /k/. When /kk/ is released (before a vowel), I notice slight fricativization.


Ihsiin said:


> ببيته _bbēta _'in his house'


Are both _b_’s released?


Ben Jamin said:


> In Polish there is a clear audible difference between initial double and single /v/, /z/, /s/.


As well in Russian and Ukrainian. But these sounds are fricatives, not occlusives.


----------



## bearded

Nino83 said:


> I move the air that there is in the mouth against the palate only moving some muscules.


Suppose that words like _occo _(for 'orco') or _acca _(for 'arca') really existed in Sicilian, or someone from Sicily pronounced both Italian words with a strong Sicilian accent: would then your ''muscle movement'' be any different from the movement necessary to produce a double c in _ccattasti, _or is it practically the same?


----------



## Nino83

bearded said:


> or is it practically the same?


The same. Identical.
There isn't any pre-aspiration.
If I had to transcribe it, I'd write [k̚ k] (or [k̚ kʰ] if I wanted to point out that the attack is stronger).


----------



## bearded

And is that different from the 'movement' necessary to produce a usual double consonant (e.g. in _sacco_) in standard Italian?


----------



## Nino83

It's the same movement.


----------



## bearded

Thanks for confirming that, Nino.  I think that now it will be perfectly clear also for our German friend berndf, since he undoubtedly knows how a default double occlusive is produced in standard Italian. The only difference is the initial position.


----------



## Nino83

Prego. And it also shows that Neapolitan and Sicilian have geminate consonants also in non-intervocalic position, differently from standard Italian. 
Italian: intervocalic position
Sicilian, Neapolitan: initial and intervocalic position 
Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic: intervocalic position and in syllable coda


----------



## bearded

Nino83 said:


> t Neapolitan and Sicilian have geminate consonants also in non-intervocalic position, differently from standard Italian.


Now I have of course changed my mind with respect to my message #10 above..


----------



## Nino83

There not so many minimal pairs, but in some cases it makes a difference.
It would be strange if an ambulant said "catta!" (paper!) instead of "ccatta!" (buy!).
If I want to say "I start working at 9" I say "ttaccu e novi" (attaccare, cominciare, attack, start doing something), instead of "taccu" (tacco, heel, come quello delle scarpe).
But words like "ccà" (qua, here) and "cchiù" (più, more) can be pronounced, indifferently, with a long or short consonant at the beginning of a sentence (there is free variation) but they are always pronounced with a long consonant in intervocalic position.
Anyway we hear the difference between short and long consonants in initial position.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> The only difference is the initial position.


Well, if that were true we would have a problem. The following statements evidently can't be true at the same time:

There is an audible difference between ca and ccà, even at the beginning of an utterance.
The words are minimal pairs (i.e.there is no other difference than_ c _vs. _cc_).
This _cc_ is produced no different than any _cc_ in standard Italian.
In standard Italian, "[t]he only difference is the initial position".

One or more of these statements we will have to revisit.


----------



## bearded

By the phrase ''the only difference is the initial position'' I meant ''the initial position of cc you only find in Southern It. dialects, which is absent in  standard Italian''. Sorry if it was unclear. I should have written ''the initial position in dialects''.  What counts is that the ''way of producing'' those initial double occlusives in dialects is the same 'effort' as to produce default intervocalic double consonants in standard Italian.


----------



## Nino83

Here you can find the four words (taccu, ttaccu, catta, ccatta). If you use headphones or earphones, the difference is evident (don't use the loudspeakers of your notebook).  
Pronounced words by Nino83 in Forvo.


----------



## berndf

bearded said:


> By the phrase ''the only difference is the initial position'' I meant ''the initial position of cc you only find in Southern It. dialects, which is absent in standard Italian''.


Unless we wanted to question the accuracy of Nino's introspection it would seem not.

I see two possible resolutions with the same basic argument:

There are regional differences in the pronunciation of standard Italian _cc_ that remain undetected because they are phonologically irrelevant in standard Italian.
There are differences between standard Italian _c_ and _cc_ beside duration that are ignored because they are phonologically irrelevant.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> There are regional differences in the pronunciation of standard Italian _cc_ that remain undetected because they are phonologically irrelevant in standard Italian.


??
The only difference is that /kk/ is pronounced [kːk] in standard and peninsular Italian, [kk] in North Italy (Piedmont, Liguria, Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna, the province of Pesaro-Urbino) [k] in the northeast (Veneto), according to Canepari (Manuale di Pronuncia Italiana, Zanichelli, pag. 135).
Anyway a southern [kːk] should be audible to a northener, since it is "stronger" than their [kk].


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Anyway a southern [kːk] should be audible to a northener, since it is "stronger" than their [kk].


"Stronger" meaning what exactly? Energy?


----------



## Nino83

According to Canepari, length. According to my hear northern geminates are halfway between short and long (but clearly different from the short ones) while the northeast geminates (in person with a strong Venetian accent) are as short as the Italian short consonants.
Anyway I don't think it (the different length in production) affects perception, since north Italians hear that central and southern long consonants are longer. On the contrary this difference enhances  the perception of the northener, being the central and southern long consonants clearly long.

The length of Sicilian, Neapolitan and standard Italian consonants is the same.


----------



## berndf

I mean other audible features than length. In standard Italian length is completely sufficient to establish the phonemic contrast and all others are therefore irrelevant. But that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist.


----------



## Nino83

Yes, in theory there could be other differences, but in this case the sound [kk] seems almost identical (unless before /j/, like in _chiave_ which is _[c]ave_ in southern Italy and _[kçj]ave_ in central and noth Italy and except for Calabria where voiceless stops are aspirated, _casa,_ _[kh]asa_).


----------



## berndf

So you thing the attack/aspiration we detected in your _ccà_ , of which you said it was produced identically to your standard Ita, is due to what? Regional accent?


----------



## Nino83

I have the doubt that the very little aspiration could be due to the low quality of recordings (those on forvo, mine included, are registered with the microphone of the notebook and the sound is compressed a lot), this is why I'm reclutant on that.

Do you hear any aspiration in the initial "t" of _ttaccu_ and in the intervocalic"t" of _taccu, ttaccu, catta, ccatta_? If I put my hand near to my mouth I don't feel aspiration, while when I pronounce _cat_ I feel the air on my hand.
Pronounced words by Nino83 in Forvo


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> I have the doubt that the very little aspiration could be due to the low quality of recordings (those on forvo, mine included, are registered with the microphone of the notebook and the sound is compressed a lot), this is why I'm reclutant on that.
> 
> Do you hear any aspiration in the initial "t" of _ttaccu_ and in the intervocalic"t" of _taccu, ttaccu, catta, ccatta_? If I put my hand near to my mouth I don't feel aspiration, while when I pronounce _cat_ I feel the air on my hand.
> Pronounced words by Nino83 in Forvo


There is some aspiration involved but it is not consistent. I have in the meantime accepted your explanation that energy/attack is the primary distinction. There is a consistent pattern in those four samples.


----------

