# Word-final consonants (and clusters): 'sport' > 'sportɐ' pronunciation



## effeundici

Hi all,

I know that Italians are made fun of for their proununciation of final consonants in English words.

_But_ becomes _butta_, for example

I think this depends on the following facts:

- Italians have lost the ability to hear short vowels (actually Latins could do that)
- Italian consonants are not pure consonants; actually they are a pure consonant followed by a short vowel (which Italians pronounce but are not aware of)

I'm quite sure of the second point because:

1. if I analyze my final "t", for example, I realize that after "exploding" the "t" in my teeth, the sound goes on moving to my throat and air flows. I am not aware this is a vowel but I presume it is by reading phonetics texts.
2. I can utter the correct proununciation of the word *bin *simply saying *b-n *(I hope you don't hear _binna!!   )_

Questions:

- Do you agree?
- Any confirmations of my theory in phonetic transcriptions?

Thanks in advance

P.S. Brian! I know you'll answer!!


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

What you need to look at is how syllables are constructed in Italian. If t is always followed by a vowel in Italian, and never exists in a word-final position, it will make the Italian want to add 'something missing' to the t at the end of the English word, too. In other words: what consonant-vowel combinations are possible in Italian? In those cases where there is a non-Italian consonant-vowel/vowel-consonant combination, that's where you'll have problems. 

You get a similar phenomenon with Spanish speakers, who keep adding an inital e-sound to some consonant clusters, such as _sp_, _st_, _sk_ because in Spanish there will be a vowel in front of them - there are no syllables beginning with these consonant clusters.. This is why a Spanish speaker is likely to pronounce 'espain' for Spain, 'eschool', 'eStockholm' etc. 

/Wilma


----------



## effeundici

Thank you. This is helpful but I think all the matter is a bit more confused.

I've just checked the phonetics transcription of _sport _in an italian dictionary. Actually it can be now considered an italian word like mamma or pasta 

It is : spɔrt

But I suppose an english phonetics expert, hearing me pronouncing _sport _would write down something like:

spɔrta


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

I can't hear you speak, but I imagine that another version might be /spɔrtə/ i.e. an indistinct vowel sound like the schwa rather than a pure a-sound. After all, if you're trying to repress a vowel sound, the usual result ought to be something like the schwa vowel. 

I found an explanation similar to mine in Wikipedia: "_Italian phonotactics do not usually permit verbs and polysyllabic nouns to end with consonants, excepting poetry and song, so foreign words may receive extra terminal vowel sounds._"

Phonotactics define the rules for permissible phoneme clusters, so even if there are italian words ending with t, they're an exception rather than a rule, which means that Italians are used to having a vowel after t. Hence the involuntary but automatic vowel sound. I'm sure you could get rid of it with practice. 

/Wilma


----------



## effeundici

I agree completely with you but I'm still wondering why italian dictionaries use /spɔrt/instead of your perfect  /spɔrtə/.

Is nobody aware of this apart from me and you??


----------



## effeundici

Strange thing! In an Italian linguistic forum I had the confrimation that Italian speakers add a scwha at the end of final consonants without actually realizing that.

But dictionaries do not write the final schwa. I'm wondering why this.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

effeundici said:


> Strange thing! In an italian linguistic forum I had the confrimation that *some* italian speakers *(depending on their origin)*  add a scwha at the end of final consonants without actually realizing that.
> 
> .



I don't do it


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

effeundici said:


> Strange thing! In an italian linguistic forum I had the confrimation that italian speakers add a scwha at the end of final consonants without actually realizing that.
> 
> But dictionaries do not write the final schwa. I'm wondering why this.


Hehe, I'm pleased that they agree with me...  I think what happens here is that the dictionaries write how they think the word _should_ be pronounced, rather than telling us how Italians _actually_ pronounce it. Sport is a fairly recent borrowing. I don't know how, if at all, other English loan words have been adapted to Italian, and if there is any difference depending on _when_ they were borrowed. Is there a conscious policy in Italy today to adapt, or not, foreign loan words? Is there a 'language authority'? Perhaps English words are regarded as commonplace, so there's no need to adapt them - they don't appear that 'foreign'? 

Compare with Spanish, where the tendency seems to be to adapt when necessary, so sport became deporte, (why not 'esporte', BTW?) and it's no great surprise that Stockholm is called Estocolmo... Your Stoccolma also represents an adaptation to Italian, which presumably happened centuries ago.

/Wilma


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Wilma_Sweden said:


> Hehe, I'm pleased that they agree with me...  I think what happens here is that the dictionaries write how they think the word _should_ be pronounced, rather than telling us how Italians _actually_ pronounce it.


Dear Wilma, there is at least one very reasonable motive to support this choice: one thing is how a word should be pronounced (here you can listen to the correct pronunciation www.dizionario.rai.it ) another thing is how people coming from different parts of the country pronounce it.
I really cannot see how a dictionary could ever list a hundred or more different pronunciations of the same word, most of which are wrong and strongly influenced by local dialects.
I'm quite sure the same thing occurs with Swedish.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Dear PaulfromItaly,

I am not questioning why Italian dictionaries list /sport/ as the correct pronunciation in Italian, I am trying to answer effeundici's question:


effeundici said:


> But dictionaries do not write the final schwa. I'm wondering why this.



I don't believe for a second that dictionaries should write anything but the norm. If the norm in Italy is /sport/, then that's the correct pronunciation that should appear in the dictionaries.

I think the key question really is why sport has never been adapted to Italian phonotactic rules in the same manner that other words have, such as my example with Stockholm/Stoccolma. Because my Italian vocabulary is very limited, I invite others to explain if there is any pattern to how English words in general are imported into Italian, i.e. if they are adapted or not to suit Italian phonetics. In the case of sport, it is evident that such an adaptation has not taken place.

/Wilma


----------



## effeundici

I'm stunned for the word I've just heard on the _Rai_ site. Not only I can't here the schwa. I can't here the *t *either!!

Anyway I think Paul is right when he says that much depends on the many regions of Italy. Probably northern dialects are full of words ending with a consonant and this helps when speaking foreign languages.

I've always lived in central Italy and our way of speaking is really very different. Down here the schwa rules!!

Who knows, Paul, perhaps Alessandro Manzoni forgot to take the schwa with him when he got back from Florence to Milan!! (for our foreigners friends: I'm referring to the fact that Alessandro Manzoni, probably our best modern writer, back in the 19th century, decided to live in Florence for a long period before writing his masterpiece "I promessi sposi", in order to get a better knowledge of the florentine dialect -ancient seed of the italian language- He used to say "I'll go there to wash my clothes in the water of the river Arno")


----------



## sokol

Hello all, 

it took us some time to decide where this thread should fit - it is not a Cultural topic but it fits nowhere else. The conclusion was to move this thread to EHL.

Please note however: the topic now is widened and specified as:

*Word-final consonants (and clusters): 'sport' > 'sportɐ' pronunciation
*
So this thread is *about languages (speakers) who add a vowel *(schwa, or "a-schwa", or "u" in some cases) to word-final consonants - languages who do not allow word-final consonants in native words.

Italian is one such language (even though some speakers might avoid this), Japanese is another one (in loans the vowel added is an "u" - even inside words to avoid consonant clusters, not only in final position), and there are plenty other languages like that: so we don't limit this thread to a particular language.

So please do not discuss lexicographic topics concerning Italian dictionaries, or other topics not falling within this re-defined question.

Thank you very much!
sokol
Moderator EHL


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

sokol said:


> So please do not discuss lexicographic topics concerning Italian dictionaries, or other topics not falling within this re-defined question.


Would my previous question be allowed, i.e. what is the general trend concerning foreign loan words in Italian of this kind? Are the words modified to suit Italian syllable patterns, or are they left 'as is', usually? Since English loan words in Spanish seem to be adapted most of the time, I am wondering whether this is due to conscious decisions by some 'language authority' or whether it's a natural process.

/Wilma


----------



## Montesacro

I think the main reason why a schwa is not indicated in the pronunciation of “sport” is that schwa’s do not belong to the standard set of Italian phonemes (although many dialects use them. But this is a different matter altogether).

_[Off topic part deleted]_ Reminder: please do *not* continue discussing lexicographic topics concerning Italian dictionaries.



Wilma_Sweden said:


> Compare with Spanish, where the tendency seems to be to adapt when necessary, so sport became deporte, (why not 'esporte', BTW?) and it's no great surprise that Stockholm is called Estocolmo... Your Stoccolma also represents an adaptation to Italian, which presumably happened centuries ago.
> 
> /Wilma


 
I very much doubt that Spanish “deporte” is an English loan. It is indeed a Romance word (in Italian we have “diporto”) whose meaning was broadened so as to include the meanings of English “sport”, which in turn derives form an Old French term (similar to “deporte” and “diporto”).



Wilma_Sweden said:


> Would my previous question be allowed, i.e. what is the general trend concerning foreign loan words in Italian of this kind? Are the words modified to suit Italian syllable patterns, or are they left 'as is', usually?
> /Wilma


 
In the past every foreign word was adapted to better suit Italian phonetics.
But from the beginning of the twentieth century onwards there’s been a trend to leave foreign borrowings unaltered.
Anyway things are a bit more complicated: for example we took the English word ”skyscraper” and kind of translated it literally; thus we obtained “grattacielo” which is nonetheless an English loan…


----------



## effeundici

I don't know my friends; I am really very puzzled!

I've been hearing again and again the *sport* pronounciation in the Rai site. It's very strange. It almost seems that the _t _is avoided in order to avoid the schwa!

I don't know; I'm aware that I live in a region where it's not air which flows in our throats; it's a strong wind! But I really can't imagine an italian, wherever he lives, who uses pure alveolar *t's. *

I'll check with some northern friends.

P.S. Just to show off a bit: I have no difficulties in reproducing an alveolar *t *when I speak English; but of course I say *sportɐ *when I'm speaking italian!


----------



## berndf

effeundici said:


> I've been hearing again and again the *sport* pronounciation in the Rai site. It's very strange. It almost seems that the _t _is avoided in order to avoid the schwa!


Do I understand you correctly that you hear them saying [spɔr]?
If so, I think this might be a different phenomenon. If those are speakers educated in classical Italian stage pronunciation they should have no problems pronouncing closed final syllables even when speaking Italian. Poetic Italian is full of closed final syllables, e.g. "cor" instead of "cuore". But, to my knowledge, even Poetic Italian does not have final *double* consonants; hence the final "t" might just be elided in order to avoid the double consonant. I experience something similar in French with my name: French has double but no triple final consonants. Hence the people where I live say and often also write "Bern" instead of "Bernd".


----------



## effeundici

berndf said:


> Do I understand you correctly that you hear them saying [spɔr]?
> .


----------



## sokol

effeundici said:


> I've been hearing again and again the *sport* pronounciation in the Rai site. It's very strange. It almost seems that the _t _is avoided in order to avoid the schwa!


I don't watch RAI but if your description is accurate then to not pronounce "t" at all would be another strategy to make "sport" a better fit to Italian syllable structure; word-final "r" will be much easier for Italians than word-final "rt", especially, as berndf has provided this (was news to me ):


berndf said:


> Poetic Italian is full of closed final syllables, e.g. "cor" instead of "cuore".


So educated Italians might find word-final "r" easy to pronounce (or word-final single consonants in general - I do not know if only liquida are included here, and nasals probably, or also fricatives and stops).

Anyway, [spɔr] would not be a perfect fit into Standard Italian syllable structure but certainly would be easier for Italians than [spɔrt] (also if you look at other Romance languages - Spanish for example, allowing word-final "r"), while [spɔrtɐ] pronunciation adopts the word to fit phonotactics.

If your native language/dialect has rather strict rules concerning syllable structure such adoptions are applied frequently, and with Italian the thing is that northern dialects even allow word-final consonants while southern dialects have an even stricter syllable structure that standard language (CVCV according to German Wiki, unfortunately not described in the Italian version).
So it is only natural that Italians from different regions will pronounce [spɔrt] differently (which of course would be again a different topic now ).



berndf said:


> If so, I think this might be a different phenomenon.


Well, it is a different strategy, sure - but essentially the same principle: adoption of loans to the native syllable structure; partial in this case - with [spɔr], or fully only if you include exceptions for Poetic Italian style.



berndf said:


> I experience something similar in French with my name: French has double but no triple final consonants. Hence the people where I live say and often also write "Bern" instead of "Bernd".


This indeed is also the same phenomenon: French allows for word-final [-rn] but not for [-rnd]: but instead of adding a vowel at the end they prefer to leave out the final plosive. The adaption however equally is due to fitting the word into French phonotactics.


----------



## effeundici

No problem Sokol, you can hear it downhere!

http://www.dizionario.rai.it/poplemma.aspx?lid=16622&r=10498


*Moderator note:*
You are supposed to ask a moderator before posting an audio link and indicate in the post who authorized you. The link is fine, no problem; just keep it in mind for the next time.
Berndf
Moderator EHL


----------



## sokol

effeundici said:


> No problem Sokol, you can hear it downhere!



(As berndf said, please ask for audio files beforehand next time. ;-))

This is actually IPA [spɔrt̚] - the final [t] is pronounced with no audible release, thus it is almost inaudible; you should hear it if you concentrate on the [r] sound: it is cut off abruptly, and this is done by restricting the flow of air (it also could be a glottal plosive by the way, with no audible release).

But it may of course be the case that some speakers actually do delete [t] here, as explained above: this is after all a dictionary where careful pronunciation is to be expected.


----------



## effeundici

_Is pronounced with no audible release!!_

Great one! Now I

- realize that I am very primitive in the knwoledge of phonetics issues
- understand why actors and news speakers attend courses of phonetics in order to eradicate their "strong regional accent" 

Thank you all


----------



## Forero

I noticed when I was in Mexico decades ago that _Woolworth_ was pronounced with a fully released final _t_ but _Ford_ ended with the _r_ sound. Does the same thing happen in (some dialects of) Italian?


----------



## effeundici

Hi all,

this is a mp3 file where I pronounce the following sentence:

*Che sport fai? *{_What sport do you play?_}

View attachment sport.mp3

Can you hear the schwa?


----------



## sokol

Yes I can. 
I hear what I would transcribe in IPA as [ke'spɔrtəfai̯] - that is, writing "Italian": "che sport(e) fai".

It is difficult to say if it is an a-schwa ɐ or an e-schwa ə but I think I hear the latter.
So in this sentence (due to insertion of the schwa) Italian phonotactic structure (that of standard language and, it seems, also of your dialect) is not violated: which basically is the reason why such vowels are inserted in such cases.


----------



## effeundici

Great!! Consider that some minutes ago I was listening again at the mp3 file and I was thinking that, probably, I had been too precise and formal in uttering the sentence. 
And this had caused, for me, total disappearance of any schwas. 

I can do much worse than this when I speak loosely!!


----------



## berndf

effeundici said:


> Great!! Consider that some minutes ago I was listening again at the mp3 file and I was thinking that, probably, I had been too precise and formal in uttering the sentence.
> And this had caused, for me, total disappearance of any schwas.


The Schwa is loud and clear. And I agree with Sokol: it is an e-Shwa and not an a-Shwa.


----------



## effeundici

berndf said:


> The Schwa is loud and clear. And I agree with Sokol: it is an e-Shwa and not an a-Shwa.


 
And now I challenge PaulfromItaly to do the same

I want to check if he is so immune, as declared, from _"schwaization" _or he is simply a poser!! 

P.S. I want to hear a *t *and not that sly *spor*!!


----------



## Paulfromitaly

effeundici said:


> P.S. I want to hear a *t *and not that sly *spor*!!


Well I just say it the way it's written: sport (with a T at the end, no other funny sounds )


----------



## berndf

effeundici said:


> P.S. I want to hear a *t *and not that sly *spor*!!


As Sokol explained, the "t" is very faint in the RAI dictionary pronunciation but it is present. As normal in Italian, the "t" is non-aspirated and a final non-aspirated plosive is *almost* inaudible. Its main effect is the sudden end of the preceeding "r" rather than a slowly dying sound.
An English speaker would pronunce the final "t" with strong aspiration.


----------



## effeundici

berndf said:


> As Sokol explained, the "t" is very faint in the RAI dictionary pronunciation but it is present. As normal in Italian, the "t" is non-aspirated and a final non-aspirated plosive is *almost* inaudible. Its main effect is the sudden end of the preceeding "r" rather than a slowly dying sound.
> An English speaker would pronunce the final "t" with strong aspiration.


 
Yes I know, but I can't resign to the loss of my beloved *tɐ.*

So basically, either one pronounces a faint _*t*_ or a *t* with a strong aspiration. If one doesn't do that, he's doomed to say *tɐ; *right?

@Paul: is it only you who says the right pronounciation (even though it's still to check on the field!!) or everybody in northern Italy does that naturally?


----------



## berndf

effeundici said:


> So basically, either one pronounces a faint _*t*_ or a *t* with a strong aspiration. If one doesn't do that, he's doomed to say *tɐ; *right?


Yes, I think so. A strongly audible plosive release is only possible if either aspiration or another sound is following.


----------



## effeundici

berndf said:


> Yes, I think so. A strongly audible plosive release is only possible if either aspiration or another sound is following.


 
That explains a lot. Basically my (personal? central italian?) mindset does not allow any written consonant (excluding _*h*) _not to be pronounced loud and clear.

Given that aspiration seems to me not even considered in Italian, we can only opt for a schwa.

Enlightening thread!


----------



## berndf

To avoid any possible misunderstanding: This aspiration issue is only about unvoiced plosives, i.e. [k], [t], [p].


----------



## brian

berndf said:


> As Sokol explained, the "t" is very faint in the RAI dictionary pronunciation but it is present. As normal in Italian, the "t" is non-aspirated and a final non-aspirated plosive is *almost* inaudible. Its main effect is the sudden end of the preceeding "r" rather than a slowly dying sound.
> An English speaker would pronunce the final "t" with strong aspiration.



My final _t_ is much more like in the RAI dictionary. In fact, my final _t_'s are never aspirated, nor are my final _p_'s. But I think that's an AE thing. Final aspiration sounds very British to me.


----------



## berndf

brian8733 said:


> My final _t_ is much more like in the RAI dictionary. In fact, my final _t_'s are never aspirated, nor are my final _p_'s. But I think that's an AE thing. Final aspiration sounds very British to me.


Indeed, in particular in Mid-Western and Western accents *but not* in the North-East. I remember once a colleague who speaks with a Western accept saying he wanted "to ride a ladder". You can imagine my confusion until I finally figured out that he wanted "to write a letter". There is a similar confusion between Germans and Austrians because Austrians also pronounce the "t" unaspirated.


----------



## sokol

brian8733 said:


> My final _t_ is much more like in the RAI dictionary. In fact, my final _t_'s are never aspirated, nor are my final _p_'s. But I think that's an AE thing. Final aspiration sounds very British to me.


Yes, some English accents clearly use no audible release (I always thought some British accents too, but it doesn't matter).
(I always thought the glottal stop instead of "t" in "but" of Cockney is due to original "but" pronounced with no audible release which easily gets re-interpretated as a glottal stop.)

The thing is now - in Italian no audible release seems to be both the norm as given by RAI and the pronunciation Northerners manage easily (or at least those Northerners who are accustomed to word-final consonants in colloquial speech).

So *Italians *have no choice but to *either *use no audible release (as Italian voiceless plosives are not aspirated) - which violates syllbable structure of standard language but is accepted for loans as "sport" - *or *insert a schwa after word-final consonant to "repair" syllable structure according to phonotactics rules.

With *English *(or other languages like German and all Slavic languages) however there is no such restriction because word-final consonant is perfectly okay there (both in standard language and dialects). Therefore, in English there is absolutely no need for a schwa to "repair" syllable structure like some Italians do with "sport". English native speakers just pronounce word-final "t" either with aspiration or with no audible release; but they never add a schwa. (As far as I know; there might be some pidginised English varieties which do, which however wouldn't be strictly English anymore.)

So to conclude: the pronunciation "strategies" for word-final consonants (and clusters) depend on the language, its syllable structure and its phonotactic rules (and its accent, sometimes).



berndf said:


> There is a similar confusion between Germans and Austrians because Austrians also pronounce the "t" unaspirated.


Right, no audible release of word-final plosives is very common in Austria.  (There are only voiceless plosives in Austrian speech, except for Carinthian dialect which is another topic.) Only "kh - k" forms a pair of aspirated and non-aspirated plosives.


----------



## brian

It'd be interesting to get the input of an Italian whose dialect contains consonant-final words. I think they are more southern, e.g. Sicilian, though I'm not sure. If they are able to pronounce final consonants without a schwa in their dialects, then they should be able to do it with loan words in standard Italian as well.


----------



## HUMBERT0

Wilma_Sweden said:


> Compare with Spanish, where the tendency seems to be to adapt when necessary, so sport became deporte, (why not 'esporte', BTW?) and it's no great surprise that Stockholm is called Estocolmo... Your Stoccolma also represents an adaptation to Italian, which presumably happened centuries ago.
> 
> /Wilma


 
No, in Spanish it comes from Latin, NOT from English, in English the original “deportare” evolved to “sport”. According to RAE “deporte” comes from “deportar” which comes from Latin “deportare”
 
*deportar.*
(Del lat. _deportāre_).
*1. *tr. Desterrar a alguien a un lugar, por lo regular extranjero, y confinarlo allí por razones políticas o como castigo.
*2. *prnl. ant. Descansar, reposar, hacer mansión.
*3. *prnl. ant. Divertirse, recrearse.

“Deporte and deportar” are more closely related to Latin “deportare”, than a more deform “sport” that is coming from a rendition in a foreign Germanic language

And the wiki in Italian says this, I can’t speak Italian, but applying my Spanish I can understand "a groso modo" the meaning… 
** 
*Etimologia *
Il termine _sport_ ha una lunga storia, traendo origine addirittura dal termine latino _deportare_ che tra i suoi significati aveva anche quello di _uscire fuori porta_, cioè uscire al di fuori delle mura cittadine per dedicarsi ad attività sportive. Da questo termine derivarono il Provenzale _deportar_, lo Spagnolo _deportar_ e il Francese _desporter_ (divertimento, svago); da quest'ultimo prese origine nell'inglese del XIV secolo il termine _disport_ che solo successivamente, intorno al XVI secolo, venne abbreviato nell'odierno _sport_.
Il termine in italiano che più si avvicina all'etimo francese è "diporto".


----------



## effeundici

brian8733 said:


> My final _t_ is much more like in the RAI dictionary. In fact, my final _t_'s are never aspirated, nor are my final _p_'s. But I think that's an AE thing. Final aspiration sounds very British to me.


 
Very true! Actually when I hear the word _sport _from an AE speaker I can hear *spɒ r *whereas when I hear it from a BE speaker I can hear *spɔːt *

Today test :

from Genoa ==> *sport*
from Bologna ==> *sportɐ*


----------



## jazyk

Brazilians also add a vowel, especially i, after consonants and consonant clusters, as most Portuguese words end in a vowel (or r, l, m, s, x or z). Big, for example is many times pronounced beegie by not very proficient Brazilian (pseudo)speakers or English and star is pronounced istar.


----------



## Flaminius

sokol said:


> Japanese is another one (in loans the vowel added is an "u" - even inside words to avoid consonant clusters, not only in final position)


Someone mentioned Japanese?  

The Japanese word for _sport_ is supposed to be /supōtu/ (non-IPA phonological notation) in keeping with the syllabic structure: a Japanese syllable must be made up of a vowel optionally preceded by a consonant (V or CV).

Three transformations should be taken into account for understanding the real Japanese pronunciation.  First, the Japanese unrounded U (/ɯ/ in IPA) is often devoiced between voiceless consonants.

Second, elongating O, which here is the trace of the assimilated liquid R, is usually accompanied by greater opening of the mouth, hence [oɔ].

Finally, the -u at the end changes the pronunciation of t immediately before it.  Japanese does not have a syllable /tu/ (even though it has the two phonemes) and turns loaned /tu/ into [tsɯ].

The final product of these changes is [sɯpoɔtsɯ].

The vowel added for _sport_ is "u" but "i" can be found in older loans.  In fact, some words have been imported twice with different end vowels.  Eg, _strike_ in sense of turnout is with -i, thus _sutoraiki_, while that in sense of blows by weapon, bat, fist is with -u, thus _sutoraiku_.


----------



## sokol

Flaminius said:


> The final product of these changes is [sɯpoɔtsɯ].


I never would have guessed.  (I never got past the stage of learning the most basic rules about Japanese phonology.)

It is an excellent description on how Japanese phonotactics influence loan adaption, thank you. 
(Concerning phonetics, I noticed - when I took Japanese for a few weeks - that /ɯ/ sometimes is very low in sonority but I didn't realise that this is due to devoicing. My teacher desparately tried to teach me how to pronounce this correctly but he *I* failed. )

Also jazyk's remarks concerning Brazilian are very interesting; to add a vowel before a consonant cluster like in "star > istar" is of course due to the same principle: adaption of a foreign syllable structure.


----------



## phosphore

I would like to know which vowel other than shwa do we pronounce when saying _sport_?


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> I would like to know which vowel other than shwa do we pronounce when saying _sport_?


In which language? In Serbian you say [spɔrt], surely?  (Without any hint of a schwa.)
After all there's no restriction for a word-final consonant cluster -rt in Serbian (or any other Slavic language for that matter).


----------



## miguel89

What about Spanish? In cases such as sport, flirt, confort, short, kart, art, etc., which are all loans from English or French, it seems to me that we use to drop final -t altogether when we don't put much effort into pronunciation. But when time comes to pronounce any of these words more or less slowly I think that we don't add any additional sounds. What do you, knowledgeable people, think?


----------



## effeundici

I have a doubt now about the inspirated *t's* we are talking about.

Actually when I speak English and pronounce a  *t* it seems to me that air is flowing through my teeth outwards and not inwards. If I try to say a *t* inspirating air it is so unnatural and difficult.

What does this mean? Does air really flow inwards in a *t *pronounced by a native??


----------



## phosphore

I do not think final plosives are aspirated.

What I asked earlier was because a plosive cannot be pronounced without a succeeding vowel; so which vowel other than shwa one (English, German or Slav) pronounces when saying _sport_, for example, so no one is aware of it?


----------



## effeundici

Plosives cannot be pronounced without a succeeding vowel?? Have you read this thread?? It's clearly stated that there are 2 options in order to pronounce _pure _plosive consonants.

Option 1 : no audible release
Option 2 : aspirated consonant

(Option 3 : you add a schwa and you are Italian )



phosphore said:


> I do not think final plosives are aspirated.
> 
> What I asked earlier was because a plosive cannot be pronounced without a succeeding vowel; so which vowel other than shwa one (English, German or Slav) pronounces when saying _sport_, for example, so no one is aware of it?


----------



## phosphore

It seems we understand different concepts under _aspiration_; what you call aspiration for me is a vowel sound, while aspiration is the strong burst of air.


----------



## brian

phosphore, many native English _do_ aspirate final _t_'s--there is a puff of air. I myself can do it easily, but in normal speech I don't because that's not how I've spoken all my life. However, I believe most British English speakers do it.

F11, I have no idea what you are talking about with _inward_ air flow.

As you said, there are two types of final _t_:

1) aspirated _t_: there is a small puff/burst of air *outward* after the _t_. I don't know how anyone can do an inward aspirated _t_ unless they are breathing in while they talk.
2) unaspirated _t_: this is actually a bit different from unaspirated _t_ followed by a vowel, which occurs in both English and (especially) Italian--all _t_'s in Italian are unaspirated. *M**id-word* unaspirated _t_* in English is basically like Italian (but in English only occurs when a consonant like _s_ precedes: _stop_), whereas *final* unaspirated _t_ is more just like a full stop (like a glottal stop, but done with the tongue)--there is no air or sound or anything afterwards. Consider the word _pot_, and while making the _o_ sound, imagine putting the tip of your tongue onto the roof of your mouth and holding it there so that all sound stops--keep it held there, and you will have made the _t_ that I make. 

I'm not sure how else to explain it because I'm not a phonologist, but that's how I see it.

*I don't consider the _t_ in a word like _wai*t*ed_ to be a mid-word unaspirated _t_ since it really either [d] (for me) or aspirated [t]; no one (I think) does an unaspirated [t].


----------



## berndf

effeundici said:


> I have a doubt now about the inspirated *t's* we are talking about.
> 
> Actually when I speak English and pronounce a *t* it seems to me that air is flowing through my teeth outwards and not inwards. If I try to say a *t* inspirating air it is so unnatural and difficult.
> 
> What does this mean? Does air really flow inwards in a *t *pronounced by a native??


You are now talking about _*ex*plosive_ vs. _*im*plosive_ plosives. As far as I know, no European language has any implosives. This has nothing to do with aspirated vs. unaspirated.

What all unvoiced explosives (t, k, p) have in common is that the speaker completely blocks the airflow, builds up pressure and then suddenly opens the blockage. In aspirated plosives the blockage is at first only opened a bit and heavy breathing is maintained for several 10s of ms (like air escaping from a punctured tyre).



brian8733 said:


> *I don't consider the _t_ in a word like _wai*t*ed_ to be a mid-word unaspirated _t_ since it really either [d] (for me) or aspirated [t]; no one (I think) does an unaspirated [t].


Some languages, like German, English or Chinese, do not distinguish between unvoiced and voiced plosives but only between aspirated and unaspirated ones. In languages which do differentiate between voiced and unvoiced plosives, like all Romance languages, there is a difference between a "d" (the vocal cords start to vibrate several 10s of milliseconds before the plosive release) and an unaspirated "t".


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> What I asked earlier was because a plosive cannot be pronounced without a succeeding vowel; so which vowel other than shwa one (English, German or Slav) pronounces when saying _sport_, for example, so no one is aware of it?


Ah right, now I get it. 

In principle a plosive always consists of two elements - no, three really:
- onset: obstruction of air flow; this is, acoustically, a very weak marker of a plosive;
- duration: timespan of obstruction, and wether or not voicing onset begins during that timespan (the end of that timespan); both duration and voicing _may _be important for perception but isn't for many languages;
- release: when air again is free to flow through the vocal tract this is perceived as a clearly audible "explosion": that is where plosives have their name from, and it is certainly the most distinctive auditive feature of plosives, present in all languages.

If a plosive happens to be pronounced in word-final and utterance-final position there are several strategies to pronounce a release:
- with no audible release so that perception depends entirely on onset (which may lead to misperceptions, for what we have some examples already, see above );
- with aspiration even in languages which else do not have aspirated plosives; in German standard language*) this is the case (so-called _Auslautverhärtung):_ plosives else not aspirated become aspirated in word-final position, but the same might happen in languages who don't have (phonemical) aspirated plosives;
- with adding of a schwa to change the word-final plosive into a non-word-final plosive.

Or, yet another possibility, with *audible release* of word-final (utterance-final) plosive. Which is not the same as adding a schwa.
For that I have no choice but to introduce the concept of VOT = voice onset time: it is explained on the Wiki page, in short VOT means the time when voicing sets on with a plosive.
If you take voiced plosives then VOT is _negative _- voicing begins before the release of the stop. You can perceive a voiced plosive with no audible release because of that voicing (and they are distinguishable from unvoiced ones due to the absence of voicing with them), but it is a very weak auditive marker.
In Slovenian, if I am not mistaken, word-final voiced plosives however are pronounced with audible release - that is, voicing continues just till some milliseconds after release of a plosive. This makes them quite easy to perceive (and distinguish from unvoiced ones), and the voicing which continues after release is way too short to be counted as a schwa. But of course the strategy of adding a schwa is just an extension of this audible release.
With unvoiced, unaspirated plosives VOT is zero or positive, voicing begins only after release - and as during the timespan between release and voice onset air flows through the vocal tract (while tongue and palatum are still rather close to each other - with [t]) this airflow is perceived, but not as aspiration unless VOT is rather long though.
So the difference between _unvoiced, unaspirated_ and _unvoiced, aspirated _mostly lies in different VOT's. Wiki gives:
- VOT = zero to below 15 (with [t]) or below 30ms (with [k]) = unaspirated
- VOT significantly longer = voiced plosives (there are huge differencies between individual languages as for the degree of aspiration, see there)
So even in languages without aspirated plosives VOT still may be positive without those plosives being perceived as aspirated.
Thus, an unvoiced, unaspirated plosive pronounced word-final with audible release prolongues airflow through the vocal tract for just a few milliseconds, which is audible (but still not nearly long enough to count as a schwa), but which is not perceived as aspiration.
I think in Serbian and Croatian word-final, utterance-final plosives are typically pronounced with audible release but you'll be judge on that. 

*) In Austrian German no audible release is however very common, as already mentioned.



berndf said:


> As far as I know, no European language has any implosives. This has nothing to do with aspirated vs. unaspirated.


Right, that's something altogether different.

Most sounds are produced with pulmonal airflow: air is flowing from the lungs outwards through the vocal tract, or with nasals through the nose; plosives only obstruct airflow for a very short period of time.
Non-pulmonal airflow involve sounds where air flows in the opposite direction (implosives, ejektives and clicks): here tongue/lips and glottis are used to produce a short period of airflow in the "wrong" direction.'*) In Caucasus region many languages have ejectives, else I don't think that any European language has one of those sounds as phonemes (they do exist in African and American languages).

Here, we are talking about pulmonal airflow only. 

*) Edit: Actually I should have explained in more detail because this is misleading/wrong.
With clicks of course you form a cavity with your tongue only, or between tongue and lips, which you widen during occlusion so that pressure sinks - and when you release the click the typical sound is produced (most people all over the world use clicks, but very few use them as phonemes ). And with ejectives there is a simultanuous occlusion of glottis and somewhere above in the speech tract - the air in this cavity gets compressed and explodes with a more intense sound than with ordinary stops. And with implosives, during occlusion air moves through the glottis which gives them a very intense sonoric sound.


----------



## phosphore

sokol said:


> Or, yet another possibility, with *audible release* of word-final (utterance-final) plosive. Which is not the same as adding a schwa.
> For that I have no choice but to introduce the concept of VOT = voice onset time: it is explained on the Wiki page, in short VOT means the time when voicing sets on with a plosive.
> If you take voiced plosives then VOT is _negative _- voicing begins before the release of the stop. You can perceive a voiced plosive with no audible release because of that voicing (and they are distinguishable from unvoiced ones due to the absence of voicing with them), but it is a very weak auditive marker.
> In Slovenian, if I am not mistaken, word-final voiced plosives however are pronounced with audible release - that is, voicing continues just till some milliseconds after release of a plosive. This makes them quite easy to perceive (and distinguish from unvoiced ones), and the voicing which continues after release is way too short to be counted as a schwa. But of course the strategy of adding a schwa is just an extension of this audible release.
> With unvoiced, unaspirated plosives VOT is zero or positive, voicing begins only after release - and as during the timespan between release and voice onset air flows through the vocal tract (while tongue and palatum are still rather close to each other - with [t]) this airflow is perceived, but not as aspiration unless VOT is rather long though.
> So the difference between _unvoiced, unaspirated_ and _unvoiced, aspirated _mostly lies in different VOT's. Wiki gives:
> - VOT = zero to below 15 (with [t]) or below 30ms (with [k]) = unaspirated
> - VOT significantly longer = voiced plosives (there are huge differencies between individual languages as for the degree of aspiration, see there)
> So even in languages without aspirated plosives VOT still may be positive without those plosives being perceived as aspirated.
> Thus, an unvoiced, unaspirated plosive pronounced word-final with audible release prolongues airflow through the vocal tract for just a few milliseconds, which is audible (but still not nearly long enough to count as a schwa), but which is not perceived as aspiration.
> I think in Serbian and Croatian word-final, utterance-final plosives are typically pronounced with audible release but you'll be judge on that.


 
That is what I wanted to know; thank you very much


----------



## Montesacro

berndf said:


> Some languages, like German, English or Chinese, do not distinguish between unvoiced and voiced plosives but only between aspirated and unaspirated ones.


 
You are still referring to word-final consonants, aren’t you?
 
So you are implying that native English speakers can correctly tell the difference between the words _code_ and _coat_ not because the _d_ in _code_ is voiced and the _t_ in _coat _is not, but because the _d_ is unaspirated whilst the _t_ is aspirated, am I right?
 
Are you sure?


----------



## berndf

Montesacro said:


> You are still referring to word-final consonants, aren’t you?
> 
> So you are implying that native English speakers can correctly tell the difference between the words _code_ and _coat_ not because the _d_ in _code_ is voiced and the _t_ in _coat _is not, but because the _d_ is unaspirated whilst the _t_ is aspirated, am I right?
> 
> Are you sure?


I am not sure about non-aspirating American accents. But in BE, aspiration is certainly the main distinction between _code_ and _coat_. It would be interesting to make a test. I bet that a majority of BE native spreakers would hear _code_ if pronounced unvoiced and unaspirated.


----------



## brian

berndf said:


> I am not sure about non-aspirating American accents. But in BE, aspiration is certainly the main distinction between _code_ and _coat_. It would be interesting to make a test. I bet that a majority of BE native spreakers would hear _code_ if pronounced unvoiced and unaspirated.



Ehm.. I highly doubt that. I'd be _very_ surprised if, when I pronounced _coat_ with my normal, AE, unvoiced, unaspirated _t_, a BE speaker understood _code_.

There is an easily detectable difference between unvoiced, unaspirated _t_ and voiced, unaspirated _d_, even for BE speakers I'd imagine (I'd be shocked otherwise).

Plus, there is also a difference in vowel length. The _o _in _code_ is longer than the _o(a)_ in _coat_.


----------



## sokol

Mod note:
The discussion about aspiration vs. voicing of plosives has been moved to this thread.


----------



## effeundici

Just a little more about this thread I opened some months ago.

My daughter, 22 months old, is quite surprising me while learning Italian.

She is completely unable to pronounce words ending with consonants.

Her friend _Morgan_ becomes _Morganne_ and, most surprising, the word _Yogourt_ becomes......_Yogourtenne_.


----------



## sokol

effeundici said:


> She is completely unable to pronounce words ending with consonants.


That's no surprise at all to me  - open syllables (CVCV - C = consonant, V = vowel) are easier to produce than closed syllables (CVC).
So it is only natural that children learn to pronounce open syllables first and only later learn closed syllables.



effeundici said:


> Her friend _Morgan_ becomes _Morganne_ and, most surprising, the word _Yogourt_ becomes......_Yogourtenne_.


That's indeed surprising  - it seems she made an analogy between "Morganne" and "Yogourt" - and due to this analogy (obviously "Morganne" is much more important to her ) "-enne" was added.


----------



## effeundici

sokol said:


> That's no surprise at all to me  - open syllables (CVCV - C = consonant, V = vowel) are easier to produce than closed syllables (CVC).
> So it is only natural that children learn to pronounce open syllables first and only later learn closed syllables.
> 
> So English and German children behave the same way as Italians?
> 
> 
> That's indeed surprising  - it seems she made an analogy between "Morganne" and "Yogourt" - and due to this analogy (obviously "Morganne" is much more important to her ) "-enne" was added.
> 
> _Morganne_ is definitely more important than Yogourt for her!!


----------



## brian

effeundici said:
			
		

> sokol said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's no surprise at all to me  - open syllables (CVCV - C = consonant, V = vowel) are easier to produce than closed syllables (CVC).
> So it is only natural that children learn to pronounce open syllables first and only later learn closed syllables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So English and German children behave the same way as Italians?
Click to expand...


Sure. That's why it's always _dada/papa_ and _mama_ before it becomes _dad_ and _mom_.


----------



## sokol

sokol said:


> That's no surprise at all to me  - open syllables (CVCV - C = consonant, V = vowel) are easier to produce than closed syllables (CVC).
> So it is only natural that children learn to pronounce open syllables first and only later learn closed syllables.
> 
> So English and German children behave the same way as Italians?


 Oh yes, they do - we're talking linguistic universals here. 
(As Brian confirmed already too. ;-)

But of course there are still national differencies - it is even more likely that Italian children take longer to learn CVC syllables because they're not exposed to them as frequently as they're in English or German speaking nations.
(Having said that, this of course depends on Italian dialect regions - less or no closed syllables in the south while more closed syllables and clusters in the north.)



sokol said:


> That's indeed surprising  - it seems she made an analogy between "Morganne" and "Yogourt" - and due to this analogy (obviously "Morganne" is much more important to her ) "-enne" was added.
> 
> _Morganne_ is definitely more important than Yogourt for her!!


See?
And I've deduced this from linguistic universalities theory only. 
(Only kidding, or more precisely exaggerating a little bit. )


----------



## Youngfun

It's interesting when I tried to pronounced the English word Rhythm as _rit__m__*ə*_ to a Singaporean guy (yes, they're also native English speakers, despite their Singlish ) and he made me repeat the word 3 times, until he understood: "oh! _rit*ə*m_!" (maybe a non-Singaporean native English speaker would have said _ri_θ_*ə*m_ )


----------



## Nino83

Paulfromitaly said:


> Well I just say it the way it's written: sport (with a T at the end, no other funny sounds )





effeundici said:


> @Paul: is it only you who says the right pronounciation (even though it's still to check on the field!!) or everybody in northern Italy does that naturally?



I think that it's only Paul who says the right pronunciation  

View attachment Roberto Maroni - sport.mp3 

This is how Roberto Maroni (President of Regione Lombardia, former leader of Lega Nord) from Varese pronounces "sport" (you can find the whole interview on youtube "Roberto Maroni su calcio scommesse [14 giugno 2011]", from 0.14" to 0.18"). 

He clearly says: il mondo dello sport [il mondo dello *spɔrtə*] 

All the Italians (of the north, centre, south) release final stops, so, seeing that we don't have aspirated consonants, we add a final schwa. 

Nobody in Italy has these native pronunciations: 
[spɔːtʰ] --> RP aspirated "t"
[spɔɹ] --> GA unreleased stop, not audible (similar to glottal replacement but "there is no designated IPA symbol for this" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-glottalization)
[spɔːʔ] --> RP glottal replacement, i.e the "t" is totally replaced by glottal stop 

unless he studies or imitates English pronunciation. 

In general, the Italians, when they speak Italian, add a schwa while when they imitate the English pronunciation usually they find easier to pronounce the RP aspirated "t". 

So, there is no isogloss north/south.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> [spɔɹ] --> GA unreleased stop, not audible (similar to glottal replacement but "there is no designated IPA symbol for this"


I don't think "unreleased" equates to "not audible". A final stop can also be identified by an audible closure and that's what's happening in GA.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> I don't think "unreleased" equates to "not audible". A final stop can also be identified by an audible closure and that's what's happening in GA.



It depend on how one is accostumed. I don't perceive easily the GA unreleased stop. 
Also Anglo-Link's video "British vs American | English Pronunciation Lesson" on youtube says (from 3'02") that "however, in American English, they tend to drop the "t" in the final position" (even, in this video they transcribe this sound using the symbol of the glottal stop/replacement). This sound seems to be very similar to the glottal stop. 

Italians don't perceive easily the sound of the glottal stop, this is why Effeundici said that he heard "spor", because it seems to us similar to a simple dropped consonant. 
The Rai's Dizionario di Ortografia e Pronuncia chose this sound but it is wrong because the normal Italian pronunciation of the word (from north to south) is with a final schwa.


----------



## Forero

Nino83 said:


> ...
> [spɔɹ] --> GA unreleased stop, not audible (similar to glottal replacement but "there is no designated IPA symbol for this"...


For me it's [ spoə̯˞t̚ ].

(The IPA symbol for an unreleased [t] is a _t_ with a "combining left angle above" (U+031A).)


----------



## Ben Jamin

Montesacro said:


> I think the main reason why a schwa is not indicated in the pronunciation of “sport” is that schwa’s do not belong to the standard set of Italian phonemes (although many dialects use them. But this is a different matter altogether).
> 
> _[Off topic part deleted]_
> Anyway things are a bit more complicated: for example we took the English word ”skyscraper” and kind of translated it literally; thus we obtained “grattacielo” which is nonetheless an English loan…


If it is translated then it is not a loan, but a calque.


----------



## Nino83

Forero said:


> For me it's [ spoə̯˞t̚ ].
> 
> (The IPA symbol for an unreleased [t] is a _t_ with a "combining left angle above" (U+031A).)



Thank you, Forero. 

Can you ear any substantial difference between GA [wɑt̚] and Cockney/RP [wɔʔ]?


----------



## berndf

If distinguishing unreleased stops were difficult in GA, than confusion of minimal pairs like _Butt_ and _Buck_ should be widespread. I don't think it is.


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> If distinguishing unreleased stops were difficult in GA, than confusion of minimal pairs like _Butt_ and _Buck_ should be widespread. I don't think it is.



But it doesn't seem that in absolute final position there is something like a glottal stop for word final /k/ and /p/ in GA (anyway John Wells found the "The lick–lip–lit merger  of final /k/, /p/ and /t/", occurring for some speakers of English English. For these speakers, "lick", "lip" and "lit" are homophonous as [lɪʔ] here. Would it be Cockney?). 

It seems to me that /k/ and /p/ are more audible than final /t/, in GA. 

For example, in "cheek" and "cheap" the final consonant are clearly pronounced (they sound like [ʧik] [ʧip], also in Wordreference's dictionary, here and here) while "cheat" sound like [ʧiʔ] or simply [ʧi] (here). The same thing happens with "bike" and "bite" and other minimal pairs (while in RP samples final /t/ are released).


----------



## berndf

I can't confirm that from my experience. p - t - k - ? are the four most important unvoiced stops in increasing order of "backness" and are equally well distinguishable. In certain combinations I find t and k the most difficult to distinguish but in principle they are of roughly equal distance.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> .. while "cheat" sound like [ʧiʔ] or simply [ʧi] (here).


I defer final judgement on how I hear it until I will have had a chance to listen to it on proper speakers on the weekend. From what I can hear on my smartphone's speakers, I hear an unreleased front stop ([p] or [t]) and not a back stop ([k] or [?]). I can't hear anything guttural about it, so it can't be a [?].


----------



## merquiades

When I pronounce final T, I put my mouth in place to pronounce the /t/ (tongue on upper teeth, mouth open) but the consonant is not released.  It is, however, audible, so _white_ definitely sounds different than _why_ or _wide_ or _wipe_.   This is more or less true for all final consonants. 
Frenchmen also try to release the final consonant (détente consonatique) and it sounds like they add a schwa to the end "The house is whit euh"  To remedy this you first have to pronounce slowly, stop in stream and force the air not to come out.  Using a candle is good. 
English speakers have the opposite problem when they learn Romance languages:  They pronounce _suite_ like _sweet_.


----------



## berndf

I guess you mean American when you say English speaker, right?


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> I guess you mean American when you say English speaker, right?



No, I did mean English-speaker.  I've never met an Englishman who pronounced something like "whiTe anD blaCK" with the consonants strong and emphasized.  What's more, the manuals we use to teach pronunciation are from Oxford and teach the method I just described before.  What´s new is it seems more Englishmen are starting to say "Whi? an? Black" with those glottal stops, even people who don't say /wɔː?əʳ/ and live away from London.


----------



## berndf

And I never met an Englishman who has pronounced a final stop without audible release and the cases when I heard an unvoiced final stop without audible aspiration I can count with the fingers of one hand. I would be very interested, if you could point me to counter-examples.


----------



## Nino83

Also Jennifer ("JenniferESL" channel, <...>, video "Lesson 14 - Glottal Stop - English Pronunciation") doesn't distinguish between "glottal stop" and "final t" before a consonant (she is American, from Northeast).  
She, firstly, explains how to produce a glottal stop in words like "fountain" or "button", then she shows us in which words there is a glottal stop. 
For her, there is a glottal stop also in "can'*t* remember", "Tim and Kur*t* need", "wan*t* one" ("t" followed by "w") and "stop i*t*" (and, of course, in "cer*t*ain"). 

So, according to three English native speakers ("Anglo-Link's" and "JenniferESL") there's no difference between the glottal stop in "fountain" and the final "t" in "want one". 

John Wells, here  says: "Pity the poor EFL learner. It is difficult to discriminate auditorily between unreleased stops at the bilabial, alveolar, velar and glottal places." and "But it's not just those learning English. Those of us who are not native speakers of Cantonese find it very hard to hear the difference between final p, t, k, all unreleased, in that language. (Hong Kong airport is called Chek Lap Kok, and each syllable ends in an *unreleased/glottallized* final consonant.)". 

It seems that this difference is not well perceived among native speakers too (after all, glottal stop and unreleased "t" differ only for the position of the tongue, I doubt that there is a great difference in sound).


----------



## berndf

berndf said:


> I defer final judgement on how I hear it until I will have had a chance to listen to it on proper speakers on the weekend. From what I can hear on my smartphone's speakers, I hear an unreleased front stop ([p] or [t]) and not a back stop ([k] or [?]). I can't hear anything guttural about it, so it can't be a [?].


I now listened to it on proper speakers and I would have to lie, if I said I heard a closure. Comparing his pronunciations of fee and feet, I couldn't say which is which.


----------



## sound shift

berndf said:


> Comparing his pronunciations of fee and feet, I couldn't say which is which.


Sorry - Whose pronunciations are "his" pronunciations?


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> Also Jennifer ("JenniferESL" channel, <...>, video "Lesson 14 - Glottal Stop - English Pronunciation") doesn't distinguish between "glottal stop" and "final t" before a consonant (she is American, from Northeast).
> She, firstly, explains how to produce a glottal stop in words like "fountain" or "button", then she shows us in which words there is a glottal stop.
> For her, there is a glottal stop also in "can'*t* remember", "Tim and Kur*t* need", "wan*t* one" ("t" followed by "w") and "stop i*t*" (and, of course, in "cer*t*ain").


Be careful. This whole thing is about /t/ adjacent to /n/. /t/ and /n/ share the same position of the tongue. The transition is make by a stop-like release or closure of velopharyngeal port. In my mind, she confuses this with a glottal stop, which is understandable as English don't properly distinguish types of back sounds and everything that happens at or behind the velum is indiscriminately perceived as "guttural".


----------



## berndf

sound shift said:


> Sorry - Whose pronunciations are "his" pronunciations?


It is obviously the same person as in _cheat _but I don't know who it is. I will try to find out.


----------



## sound shift

Thanks, but there's no need to do that. What I meant was - Which audio files are we talking about? The UK pronunciations or the US pronunciations?


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> Also Jennifer ("JenniferESL" channel, <...>, video "Lesson 14 - Glottal Stop - English Pronunciation") doesn't distinguish between "glottal stop" and "final t" before a consonant (she is American, from Northeast).
> She, firstly, explains how to produce a glottal stop in words like "fountain" or "button", then she shows us in which words there is a glottal stop.
> For her, there is a glottal stop also in "can'*t* remember", "Tim and Kur*t* need", "wan*t* one" ("t" followed by "w") and "stop i*t*" (and, of course, in "cer*t*ain").
> 
> So, according to three English native speakers ("Anglo-Link's" and "JenniferESL") there's no difference between the glottal stop in "fountain" and the final "t" in "want one".
> 
> John Wells, here  says: "Pity the poor EFL learner. It is difficult to discriminate auditorily between unreleased stops at the bilabial, alveolar, velar and glottal places." and "But it's not just those learning English. Those of us who are not native speakers of Cantonese find it very hard to hear the difference between final p, t, k, all unreleased, in that language. (Hong Kong airport is called Chek Lap Kok, and each syllable ends in an *unreleased/glottallized* final consonant.)".
> 
> It seems that this difference is not well perceived among native speakers too (after all, glottal stop and unreleased "t" differ only for the position of the tongue, I doubt that there is a great difference in sound).



I didn't know there were any glottal stops in the US--  I thought it was typically British-- but after seeing "Jennifer" I realize it is true in informal speech they exist too, but I dare say never in the middle of a word like "waiter" or "water". 

The difference is when I hear my friend from Plymouth say "at home" the tongue is not put into place for T and the pause is longer between the two words. When I say it the tongue is put into place for T but nothing comes out, there is nothing in the throat, and there is no pause or a quick one.  I don't doubt you can't hear a difference. It's minuscule.  

<...>

Berndf.  Stops at the end of words do not have the same intensity as at the beginning of a word, so there is no puff of air.


----------



## Youngfun

What about button, cotton. Americans seem to always pronounce them with a glottal stop.


----------



## merquiades

Youngfun said:


> What about button, cotton. Americans seem to always pronounce them with a glottal stop.



Yes as on Niño's video, but I think the flap T is more common though.


----------



## berndf

sound shift said:


> Thanks, but there's no need to do that. What I meant was - Which audio files are we talking about? The UK pronunciations or the US pronunciations?


Obviously the US one. For UK the whole discussion about unreleased stops doesn't make sense, does it?


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> Berndf.  Stops at the end of words do not have the same intensity as at the beginning of a word, so there is no puff of air.


In RP, all unvoiced stops are invariably aspirated, independent of position in the word because it is relevant for the Voiced/unvoiced distinction. This isn't so in all dialects in England but it is certainly true for RP, classical and modern.


----------



## Nino83

merquiades said:


> after seeing "Jennifer" I realize it is true in informal speech they exist too, but I dare say never in the middle of a word like "waiter" or "water".



Yes, intervocalic glottal stops are a peculiar feature of Cockney/Estuary English, there's no doubt.  



merquiades said:


> The difference is when I hear my friend from Plymouth say "at home" the tongue is not put into place for T and the pause is longer between the two words. When I say it the tongue is put into place for T but nothing comes out, there is nothing in the throat, and there is no pause or a quick one.  I don't doubt you can't hear a difference. *It's minuscule*.



But, if I well understood, some American hears this little difference, isn't it? 



berndf said:


> In my mind, she confuses this with a glottal stop, which is understandable as English don't properly distinguish types of back sounds and everything that happens at or behind the velum is indiscriminately perceived as "guttural".



The fact that makes me think is that she hears the same sound in "bu*tt*on" and "stop i*t*". 
So, the "minuscule" difference in production sometimes isn't perceived so well, even among American speakers.


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> Yes, intervocalic glottal stops are a peculiar feature of Cockney/Estuary English, there's no doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> But, if I well understood, some American hears this little difference, isn't it?


If you stop to pay attention you can hear the difference when people pronounce the glottal stop at the end of the word but in normal conversation it flies very easily.  That would be the case with "it" in an utterance like "Give it back to me now".  
If someone pronounces it intervocalically you always hear the glottal stop immediately though.  "Waiter, a glass of water, please".


----------



## Sempervirens

effeundici said:


> Strange thing! In an Italian linguistic forum I had the confrimation that Italian speakers add a scwha at the end of final consonants without actually realizing that.
> 
> But dictionaries do not write the final schwa. I'm wondering why this.



Ciao, Effe! Da noi in Toscana, in famiglia e con gli amici, si tende a pronunciare la forma sport_e_. Finora non avevo fatto caso se l'ultima vocale fosse una scevà.  A dire la verità, a parte le preposizioni semplici, quelle che terminano in consonante, e le molte parole del latino che ci sono pervenute così come le troviamo sul dizionario_ bonus, forum, lapis_, (ma da noi pronunciato anche _lapisse_) ecc. c'è la tendenza ad aggiungere qualcosa alla parola che pare come monca. Abbiamo dunque parole come filme, camionne, gippe,  ecc. che poi si prestano ad accogliere altre terminazioni, filmetto, filmuccio, filmaccio, filmone, camionetta, camione, camioncino, camionaccio, gippone, gippetta, ecc. 

Mi sembra che lo stesso fenomeno, ma all'inverso, sia capitato alla stragrande maggioranza delle parole latine che _hanno cambiato passaporto.  _Mi verrebbe da dire, frutto della mia fantasia,  che per certi parlanti, nelle quali lingue la pronuncia delle vocali segue meccanismi al sottoscritto poco comprensibili, si sia instaurata una specie di avversione alle vocali.
Saluti


----------



## Nino83

merquiades said:


> but in normal conversation it flies very easily.  That would be the case with "it" in an utterance like "Give it back to me now".



Yes, this is the "problem". 
It's easy to hear the glottal stop intervocalically but when it is at the end of a word I (like JenniferESL in her video) can't say if that "it" is a glottal stop or an unreleased "t". They are too similar (to me).


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> Yes, this is the "problem".
> It's easy to hear the glottal stop intervocalically but when it is at the end of a word I (like JenniferESL in her video) can't say if that "it" is a glottal stop or an unreleased "t". They are too similar (to me).



It's probably not a glottal stop, but is it so important to pinpoint it?   In whichever situation the [t] is unreleased.  As I said if the pause is longer and you can hear the air stopped in the throat it's a glottal stop.  
Americans don't usually have a glottal stop when the next word begins with a vowel though, for example:  Give it away, look at her.  A glottal stop in this case would sound quintessentially British to my ears.


----------

