# The American /t/ sound between vowels



## darthnick

Hi everybody!

I can't understand how is 't' pronounced in words such as 'better', 'matter', etc and also in cases like this one:

"He asked me to shu[t u]p"

When a word is ended with 't' and the next one is a vowel( I hope you've got what I mean )
To me, it sounds like 'd' sound or russian 'p'.
Can you explain me how to pronounce it in the right way?

Thank you


----------



## panjandrum

Look up those words in the WR dictionary and click on the US pronunciation.
 - to hear one US person say them.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

There is no single US pronunciation, any more than there is a single UK pronunciation.  Depending on where the speaker is from, the pronunciation can vary widely -- for example, there are some American accents that do not pronounce the double "t" in such words as "bottle" at all, but instead change it into a glottal stop in the same way that some British accents do.


----------



## dobes

And others do turn it into the d sound -- bedder, madder, shuddup.  But as far as pronunciation, we have many regional differences, enough so that it's often a little difficult to understand people from other parts of the country. There is no general American pronunciation, really.


----------



## cyberpedant

I just followed Panjandrum's suggestion and entered the word "twenty" and heard both the US and UK pronunciations--which are different from mine--native New Yorker. In this word we "neglect" to pronounce the "t" completely, saying "twenny." 
The word "kitten" is pronounced with a very soft glottal stop. Using the voiceless alveolar plosive--which we normally think of as the sound represented by "t," would be considered an overcorrection. dobes' comment is right on.
I would suggest that you listen carefully to English radio and try to work it out for yourself.


----------



## Voxy

cyberpedant said:


> ...
> I would suggest that you listen carefully to English radio and try to work it out for yourself.



Also there are some great Podcasts available on the net.
My favorite is ESLPOD written and produced by Dr. Jeff McQuilln.
It is almost ever a pleasure to follow his efforts to teach us 
Non-native speakers.

Voxy


----------



## tom_in_bahia

The VntV cluster seems to be more outside of NY, though, because though I grew up in Florida to parents from upstate NY, I noticed it occured in Florida and AZ (both states with heavy migrant populations from the Northeast/New England).

*Word initial T is aspirated:* 
Tom, ten, tar
*Vowel medial T is a Tap/Flap:* 
better, got to ("gotta"),  muted
*Vowel medial with n (VntV) is not pronounced:* 
winter (sounds like winner), counter, twenty
*Vowel medial with followed by a weak vowel plus n becomes glottal:*
button, cotton, mitten
*In the "tr" combination, the t turns into something like /tS/ (like in *_ch_*eese):*
tree, buttress, entry
*Word final T after vowel becomes unreleased or even glottal (depending):*
but, it, parrot*
*Word final T after other consonants may be deleted or weakened:*
next, rest, fast**
*Word final -nt may cause the vowel to be more tense*** and nasal and the T to be unreleased or glottal:*
can't, rent, won't

Afterthoughts:
* - keep in mind that if the word that follows begins with a vowel, the tap/flap rule will apply
** - I can't remember the linguistic term for this, so I just said tense

I would like to hear someone's thoughts on this who is more involved in the linguistics field than I am. I know that my family, being from the Adirondacks area of New York misses three big dialect groups: New England, New York/New Jersey, and Great Lakes. I don't know whether this would lead to an adoption of various phenomena from these other dialects, or because of isolation, and proximity to Canada, a rather Canadianesque dialect. As far as vocab goes, it's not very Canadian English, but then again, that area borders Quebec...thoughts? (Keep in mind I didn't grow up there).


----------



## mplsray

darthnick said:


> Hi everybody!
> 
> I can't understand how is 't' pronounced in words such as 'better', 'matter', etc and also in cases like this one:
> 
> "He asked me to shu[t u]p"
> 
> When a word is ended with 't' and the next one is a vowel( I hope you've got what I mean )
> To me, it sounds like 'd' sound or russian 'p'.
> Can you explain me how to pronounce it in the right way?
> 
> Thank you


 
Others have suggested listening to examples of the sound, but that no more tells you how to pronounce the sound than listening to a French person say _tu_ tells you how to say the "French _u."_ To learn to pronounce it, you need to find discussions of the phonetics of the matter, and a good place to start is with the Wikipedia article "Intervocalic alveolar flapping."


----------



## Hotu Matua

As a Spanish speaker Mexican, I find easier to pronounce a middle "t" between vowel sounds as a full /t/, just as in many other languages.

For example, be*tt*er, bu*tt*er, wha*t *a night (the "t" between "what" and "a"), etc.

I understand that British people and other English-speaking people around the world do that, but Americans just utter the t to sound like a special kind of "Romanic r". Their _"better"_ sound very similar to the way Spanish, Italian or Portuguese people would say _berer._

*My question is, why in either American English Dictionaries or American/British Dicitionaries that depict both American and British pronunciations I consistently fail to find any reference at all concerning this American version of the "t" sound?*

I find both the British and American versions of all words, such as the "o" in "rope", of  "a" in "dance", of the final "r" in "fair", etc. etc.

By the same token, I would expect the American "t" between vowel sounds to proudly appear as an  accepted variation. But indeed, the dictionaries ALWAYS represent this /t/ sound as though British and Americans would pronounce it the same way, which is obviously not true. In fact, that difference strikes every learner of the English language much more than slighter differences between vowel sounds (like the "o " in "hot").

Why do Americans do not seem to accept their own version of "t" between vowel sounds?


----------



## Hotu Matua

I am an Spanish speaker, and I find it strange that dictionaries that depict both British and American pronunciation versions of a word, seem not to distinguish between the /t/ sound pronunced between vowel sounds at each side of the ocean.

For English learners, this /t/ sound is one of the most striking differences between British and American pronunciations. Just consider common words and sentences as
wa*t*er
be*tt*er
Wha*t* a life!

*Why is this sound not represented properly in the phonetic translation of words that convey this sound?*

As per the dictionaries, it seems that "pretty" would be pronunced the same in Britain that in the USA, when this is obviously not true.


----------



## Dimcl

Since you haven't explained what you think the difference is, it's hard to know what you mean.  Why is it not true that "pretty" is pronounced the same?


----------



## TheAmzngTwinWndr

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you mean that in AE the t's in these words are pronounced more like d's?  If so, all I can say is that they should be pronounced with a 't' but for whatever reason in everyday speech this is not always the case.

As for 'pretty' I think you mean that in AE it's pronounced more like "pritty" or "priddy".  The pronunciation of the 't' is for the same reason as above.  As for the 'e' I don't know why we pronounce it as an 'i'.  I've actually wondered that myself, but that's just the way it is.

n.b. I'm from Southern California so maybe this is just how we say it here, if you're from another part of the US feel free to correct me.


----------



## Hotu Matua

Well, the "tt" of pretty sounds radically different in Britain than in USA.
The same with "butter", "better", "Betty" "What a day!" etc.

Since I have not found any phonetic transcription of the American "t", I find no way to explain the sound, other than saying that "pretty" in USA sounds to a Spanish, Italian or European Portuguese-speaker as /priri/ while in the UK version is sound like a full /priti/.

The American water sounds like /warer/ while the British sounds like /wate/ (of course, I am not considering here the final -er difference, or the somewhat different value of the "a":  I am phocusing only in the "t" between vowel sounds).

A similar case of a different "t" occurs in words like "party" or "Atlanta"(where the t is silenced completely in America to sound something like /pari/ and /Atlana/ for a Spanish ear, but fully /parti/ and /Atlanta/ when pronounced by a Brit)


----------



## modus.irrealis

Hotu Matua said:


> I understand that British people and other English-speaking people around the world do that


I think it's common for British and others to replace that *t* as a glottal stop, but I think this may be a non-prestigious pronunciation, so this will have to be confirmed by someone who knows.



> *My question is, why in either American English Dictionaries or American/British Dicitionaries that depict both American and British pronunciations I consistently fail to find any reference at all concerning this American version of the "t" sound?*


I think the reason is that the pronunciation is automatic (or to use the technical term, allophonic) and speakers aren't necessarily aware of it, and so it's the "same sound" for those English speakers. It's similar to why dictionaries don't indicate the difference between the *t* in *tall* and the *t* in *stall*, which are also different. In a sense, it would be redundant to indicate that pronunciation here because that's how *t *is pronounced colloquially when it's in that position. That may be the reason.


----------



## Hotu Matua

TheAmzngTwinWndr said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you mean that in AE the t's in these words are pronounced more like d's? If so, all I can say is that they should be pronounced with a 't' but for whatever reason in everyday speech this is not always the case.
> 
> As for 'pretty' I think you mean that in AE it's pronounced more like "pritty" or "priddy". The pronunciation of the 't' is for the same reason as above. As for the 'e' I don't know why we pronounce it as an 'i'. I've actually wondered that myself, but that's just the way it is.
> 
> n.b. I'm from Southern California so maybe this is just how we say it here, if you're from another part of the US feel free to correct me.


 
Thank you very much, you got my point.
For you Americans sound like a d (for us, Spanish speakers, like our middle r). But the point is the same.
Why American English Dictionaries or British/American English do not show this difference? They show the different version at every possible word.
They show how the "o" in "hot" is different, or the "a" in "dance", or the final "-er" in so many words, etc.
*However, none of them points out the difference between this t sound.*
*As a result, a reader of this otherwise excellent dictionaries would not have a clue to know that there is indeed a striking difference.*

And it is striking, since if I say "matter" with a full "t", in California, you will know inmediately that I'm not speaking an American version of your language.


----------



## icelolli

What is the difference between the *t* in _stall_ and _tall_?


----------



## Dimcl

Hotu Matua said:


> Thank you very much, you got my point.
> For you Americans sound like a d (for us, Spanish speakers, like our middle r). But the point is the same.
> Why American English Dictionaries or British/American English do not show this difference? They show the different version at every possible word.
> They show how the "o" in "hot" is different, or the "a" in "dance", or the final "-er" in so many words, etc.
> *However, none of them points out the difference between this t sound.*
> *As a result, a reader of this otherwise excellent dictionaries would not have a clue to know that there is indeed a striking difference.*
> 
> And it is striking, since if I say "matter" with a full "t", in California, you will know inmediately that I'm not speaking an American version of your language.


 
I am quite puzzled by your conviction, HM.  Many, many of my American friends pronounce these words with the "t" sound (and not the "d" sound mentioned by TATW nor the "r" sound mentioned by you).  I agree that I have often heard these words pronounced with the "d" sound but I've probably been known to do that as well, when speaking quickly.  It takes more effort and time to pronounce the "t" in "better" than it does to pronounce it "bedder".

I've travelled extensively in the U.S., Britain and Canada and have honestly never had these differences leap out at me except in the sense that the vowels have as many pronunciations as you can imagine.  If you ever visit the province of Newfoundland, Canada, be prepared to not understand anything you hear... "better" could be "bitter", "batter", "bidder", "badder", you name it.

To sum up, I think that the AE pronunciation of the words you mention is a result of the speed with which the words are said and the regional accents.  I also have a pet theory that _enunciation _is not really taught in school anymore (at least not here in Canada and, I suspect, the U.S.) and children are not corrected when speaking "lazily".


----------



## modus.irrealis

The *t* in *tall* is aspirated, i.e. accompanied by a puff of air, while the *t* in *stall *is not. You can actually feel the difference if you hold your hand in front of your mouth while you say the two words.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Dimcl said:


> To sum up, I think that the AE pronunciation of the words you mention is a result of the speed with which the words are said and the regional accents.  I also have a pet theory that _enunciation _is not really taught in school anymore (at least not here in Canada and, I suspect, the U.S.) and children are not corrected when speaking "lazily".



I'm not sure, Dimcl. Even when speaking slowly, I still can't imagine myself stressing the "tt" in "better" so that it becomes a hard "t."

If you click on the speaker icon in the wordreference, you can clearly hear the difference between the AmE pronunciation and the BrE pronunciation. According to the dictionary, BrE maintains the hard "t" sound in words such as better, letter, water, etc., whereas in North American pronunciation these words take on more of a "d" sound.


----------



## panjandrum

If I heard someone pronounce these words (better and matter in particular) with a voiced "d" rather than unvoiced "t", it would be one factor suggesting a US native.  I don't think I would rely on it as a key indicator.


----------



## nichec

tomandjerryfan said:


> I'm not sure, Dimcl. Even when speaking slowly, I still can't imagine myself stressing the "tt" in "better" so that it becomes a hard "t."
> 
> If you click on the speaker icon in the wordreference, you can clearly hear the difference between the AmE pronunciation and the BrE pronunciation. According to the dictionary, BrE maintains the hard "t" sound in words such as better, letter, water, etc., whereas in North American pronunciation these words take on more of a "d" sound.


 
Agreed. We used to joke about that all the time.

When my friends and me went to see "Harry Porter", we laughed everytime when the characters said something like water, matter, better, later.......

And if we are trying to mimic the British accent, that's exactly what we do, stressing the "t" sound.


----------



## Hakro

A bit more than a year ago we had a WR discussion about the American pronunciation of "t" or "tt" between vowels. I couldn't find the thread right now but I think it was on the English only forum.

In my ears it sounds more like "d" than "r", but it's obvious that in American ears it sounds like "t". They (at least many of them) pronounce "better" and "bedder" (if there is such word) exactly the same way.


----------



## Hakro

Now I found the thread.

And there are more. Just search English only with "bedder".


----------



## avok

Hotu Matua said:


> I am an Spanish speaker, and I find it strange that dictionaries that depict both British and American pronunciation versions of a word, seem not to distinguish between the /t/ sound pronunced between vowel sounds at each side of the ocean.
> 
> For English learners, this /t/ sound is one of the most striking differences between British and American pronunciations. Just consider common words and sentences as
> wa*t*er
> be*tt*er
> Wha*t* a life!
> 
> *Why is this sound not represented properly in the phonetic translation of words that convey this sound?*
> 
> As per the dictionaries, it seems that "pretty" would be pronunced the same in Britain that in the USA, when this is obviously not true.


 
Hey Matua,

I "think", in America, it is still considered to pronounce those words (water, better etc...) with a "t" is correct therefore, pronouncing them with a "d" is seen , somehow, a regionalism or Americanism. 

But I do think you are right, I have never heard an American saying "water" with a "t", they all go "waa*d*err". 

But when they sing, if they have to divide the word into syllables, they pronounce the "t"s  i.e. "little drops of waa..*t*er" because the second syllable begins with a "t".


----------



## ernest_

Hotu Matua said:


> But indeed, the dictionaries ALWAYS represent this /t/ sound as though British and Americans would pronounce it the same way, which is obviously not true.



Maybe your dictionary is not good enough. Look here, for instance:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=7163&ph=on

Do you see that arrow-like symbol below the "t"? It means "voiced."


----------



## TheAmzngTwinWndr

Hotu Matua said:


> Thank you very much, you got my point.
> For you Americans sound like a d (for us, Spanish speakers, like our middle r). But the point is the same.
> Why American English Dictionaries or British/American English do not show this difference? They show the different version at every possible word.
> They show how the "o" in "hot" is different, or the "a" in "dance", or the final "-er" in so many words, etc.
> *However, none of them points out the difference between this t sound.*
> *As a result, a reader of this otherwise excellent dictionaries would not have a clue to know that there is indeed a striking difference.*
> 
> And it is striking, since if I say "matter" with a full "t", in California, you will know inmediately that I'm not speaking an American version of your language.


 
I think the reason this difference isn't in the dictionaries is because it isn't supposed to be like that.  "Water" should be pronounced as "water" not "wader", yet with an American accent, and I'm sure other factors, it comes out with a 'd' sound.


----------



## Outsider

modus.irrealis said:


> I think it's common for British and others to replace that *t* as a glottal stop, but I think this may be a non-prestigious pronunciation, so this will have to be confirmed by someone who knows.


It's a regional or sociolectal pronunciation (_cockney_, and a couple of other accents). It don't think it's used by the majority of speakers.

I have to say, Hotu, that sometimes when I hear Spanish speakers pronounce the intervocalic -t-/-d- the American way it doesn't sound quite right -- more like the Spanish "r" than it should be. Perhaps it's the elusive difference between a flap and a tap.


----------



## emma42

I can confirm that it's common in BE to replace "t" in words such as "butter" with a glottal stop.  It is "non-prestigious", and I do it all the time!

Edit:  My post crossed with Outsider's.  I would say that it is more widespread than "cockney" and a couple of other accents.


----------



## TheAmzngTwinWndr

Hotu Matua said:


> Well, the "tt" of pretty sounds radically different in Britain than in USA.
> The same with "butter", "better", "Betty" "What a day!" etc.
> 
> Since I have not found any phonetic transcription of the American "t", I find no way to explain the sound, other than saying that "pretty" in USA sounds to a Spanish, Italian or European Portuguese-speaker as /priri/ while in the UK version is sound like a full /priti/.
> 
> The American water sounds like /warer/ while the British sounds like /wate/ (of course, I am not considering here the final -er difference, or the somewhat different value of the "a": I am phocusing only in the "t" between vowel sounds).
> 
> A similar case of a different "t" occurs in words like "party" or "Atlanta"(where the t is silenced completely in America to sound something like /pari/ and /Atlana/ for a Spanish ear, but fully /parti/ and /Atlanta/ when pronounced by a Brit)


 
I'm not sure what you mean by saying 'pretty' sounds like 'priri' or 'water' sounds like 'warer' or 'party' sounds like 'pari'.  I've never heard someone pronounce it like that, maybe it's a regional dialect? (though I doubt it).

As for 'Atlanta' being pronounced 'Atlana', I think that just happens because it is easier to say 'Atlana' when speaking fast than it is to say 'Atlanta' and pronounce the 't'.  The 't' dissappears because without it the syllables flow together easier and one doesn't have to slow down their talking speed to pronounce the 't'.


----------



## mplsray

TheAmzngTwinWndr said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by saying 'pretty' sounds like 'priri' or 'water' sounds like 'warer' or 'party' sounds like 'pari'. I've never heard someone pronounce it like that, maybe it's a regional dialect? (though I doubt it).


 
The person to whom you were replying said it sounded like "priri" and "warer" "to a _Spanish_ ear." A Spanish _r_ in such a position would be quite different from an English _r_. It's a _tap_ (also known as a _flap_) and the symbol used for this sound in the International Phonetic Alphabet looks similar to a small _r_ and may well have been derived from it. To see the IPA symbol, take a look at the Wikipedia article Alveolar tap. The Spanish word _pero,_ for existence, has this sound, and it contrasts with the middle consonant in _perro._

I know of two dictionaries which show the contrast between British and American English on this subject. One is the Oxford English Dictionary, which in its more recent entries gives both a British and an American pronunciation. For example, the third noun entry for _meter_ in the online OED, listed as "DRAFT REVISION Dec. 2001," shows /t/ for the British pronunciation, /d/ for the American. (I don't have a subscription to the OED, but I have a free subscription to the OED Word of the Day, and this sense of _meter_ was a recent WOTD.)

The other dictionary is the online Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. In a word such as _butter_ it shows a /t/ in the British pronunciation, while the American has for the alveolar flap a /t/ with a mark underneath it which looks like an upside-down circumflex. I think it's odd that the OED didn't go for some such symbol, instead of using /d/.


----------



## JeffJo

Hotu Matua said:


> ... Why is this sound not represented properly in the phonetic translation of words that convey this sound?



It probably is.  You're probably looking in the wrong kind of reference book, for what you want.  

What region of the U.S. are you referring to?  That's important information you haven't mentioned yet.

If you go to the Merriam-Webster dictionary online, look up "water," and click the little speaker for the sound, what sound do you hear?  That sound is factually a 't'.  Do you hear it as a 'd'?


----------



## Outsider

JeffJo said:


> What region of the U.S. are you referring to?  That's important information you haven't mentioned yet.


All of them? Most Americans seem to use that pronunciation. At least, the ones in the media do. See here: intervocalic alveolar flapping.


----------



## avok

icelolli said:


> What is the difference between the *t* in _stall_ and _tall_?


 
Nothing, but there is a difference between the t in _tall _and and _water_ in American/Australian/Cockney speech.


----------



## cycloneviv

avok said:


> Nothing, but there is a difference between the t in _tall _and and _water_ in American/Australian/Cockney speech.



I'd be wary of saying that. I'm Australian and, depending on the position of the word within a phrase, I have often said the "t" sound in _tall_ and _water_ in an identical fashion. There are many Australians who actually speak quite precisely! I do, sometimes, say "warder", or something similar, but not all the time.


----------



## avok

panjandrum said:


> If I heard someone pronounce these words (better and matter in particular) with a voiced "d" rather than unvoiced "t", it would be one factor suggesting a US native. I don't think I would rely on it as a key indicator.


 
But in Northern Ireland, you are more likely to pronounce these words with "d" unlike many English and Southern Ireland natives.



Dimcl said:


> To sum up, I think that the AE pronunciation of the words you mention is a result of the speed with which the words are said and the regional accents. I also have a pet theory that _enunciation _is not really taught in school anymore (at least not here in Canada and, I suspect, the U.S.) and children are not corrected when speaking "lazily".


 
I guess, some Canadians tend to pronounce these words with "t". Thus, they prefer Toron*t*o over American Toronno 



emma42 said:


> I can confirm that it's common in BE to replace "t" in words such as "butter" with a glottal stop. It is "non-prestigious", and I do it all the time!
> 
> Edit: My post crossed with Outsider's. I would say that it is more widespread than "cockney" and a couple of other accents.


 
I also think the glottal stops are more widespread in England thanks to Estuary English. But replacing "t" in such words with a "d" also occurs in England. E.g. "Tony Blair : the Bri*d*ish people" . Ohhh, the new prime minister, Mr. Brown, is even worse (in terms of replacing t with a d, but...he is Scottish so that's not taken into account)


----------



## modus.irrealis

Outsider said:


> It's a regional or sociolectal pronunciation (_cockney_, and a couple of other accents). It don't think it's used by the majority of speakers.



Thanks.



emma42 said:


> I can confirm that it's common in BE to replace "t" in words such as "butter" with a glottal stop.  It is "non-prestigious", and I do it all the time!


I wasn't really happy with "non-prestigious" but I didn't know what to use. My only semi-regular exposure to British accents is BBC news and Coronation Street, so you can imagine how little I know of British English .


----------



## mplsray

JeffJo said:


> It probably is. You're probably looking in the wrong kind of reference book, for what you want.
> 
> What region of the U.S. are you referring to? That's important information you haven't mentioned yet.
> 
> If you go to the Merriam-Webster dictionary online, look up "water," and click the little speaker for the sound, what sound do you hear? That sound is factually a 't'. Do you hear it as a 'd'?


 
I listened to both pronunciation examples given. Neither has /t/. Both have a flap. In contrast, the British prestige pronunciation (Received Pronunciation) of _water_ clearly has a /t/ sound.


----------



## modus.irrealis

avok said:


> I guess, some Canadians tend to pronounce these words with "t". Thus, they prefer Toron*t*o over American Toronno


Although Torontonians say "Traw-no" or a variation thereof . Actually, dropping the t after n is very common in Canadian English, e.g. winter and winner are basically homophones for me in casual speech.

But about the t in water, it's not just that it becomes voiced, it becomes a different kind of sound, a flap as has been said. I can understand saying it becomes a d only because a d also becomes a flap in those positions. Using the site the JeffJo mentioned, here are the pronunciations of

metal
medal
tall
medallion

and I have pretty similar pronunciation but you can hear that the t of metal and the d of medal are the same sound which is quite different from the t of tall or the d of medallion.


----------



## avok

modus.irrealis said:


> metal
> medal
> tall
> medallion
> 
> and I have pretty similar pronunciation but you can hear that the t of metal and the d of medal are the same sound which is quite different from the t of tall or the d of medallion.


 
Yes... because of the stress

'metal, 
'medal

tall : "t" is the first letter so it can't be "dall "
me'dallion


----------



## tomandjerryfan

avok said:


> I guess, some Canadians tend to pronounce these words with "t". Thus, they prefer Toron*t*o over American Toronno


 
I and many Ontarians would actually say "Turonno/Tronno." You rarely hear the second "t." The same happens with "Atlanta": we usually say "At-lanna."

Water is generally pronounced "war-der" in Canadian English, though I'm not quite sure why we add an "r" besides the fact it's a bit easier to pronounce.


----------



## HistofEng

I think it's amusing that they're are some Americans who really believe that they're pronouncing an actual "t" when they say words like "water"

If anyone were to pronounce the "t(t)" in "utter" or "Minnesota" as anything but a flap (a "d") it would seem very peculiar to me, except perhaps when a word is being emphasized.

Minnesota rymes with soda.


----------



## panjandrum

avok said:


> <<Originally Posted by *panjandrum*
> 
> 
> If I heard someone pronounce these words (better and matter in particular) with a voiced "d" rather than unvoiced "t", it would be one factor suggesting a US native. I don't think I would rely on it as a key indicator.>>
> But in Northern Ireland, you are more likely to pronounce these words with "d" unlike many English and Southern Ireland natives.
> [...]


You surprise me!
This does not sound familiar to me, and the few sources I checked suggest that the softening of t to d is a North American, Australian, Scottish and Indian characteristic.  However, I think they are all quoting an original Wiki entry HERE.


----------



## Acrolect

HistofEng said:


> I think it's amusing that they're are some Americans who really believe that they're pronouncing an actual "t" when they say words like "water"


 
It does not surprise me that much because it goes to show that mentally, the allophones (aspirated, semi-aspirated, unaspirated [t], flap, etc.) are indeed (to a certain extent at least) perceived as the same. IMHO, this is also the reason why it makes perfect sense to have a phonemic (rather than a narrow phonetic) transcription in dictionaries (even though some dictionaries semi-indicate variation with diacritics). EFL learners aiming for a specific accent will learn about the concrete realization differences elsewhere, esp. about the consistent and systematic ones (e.g. about the flapping of intervocalic /t/, or also about the different /r/ realizations).


----------



## avok

panjandrum said:


> You surprise me!
> This does not sound familiar to me, and the few sources I checked suggest that the softening of t to d is a North American, Australian, Scottish and Indian characteristic. However, I think they are all quoting an original Wiki entry HERE.


 
Hey,

I have always thought that this is the case for the Scottish-Irish community in Northern Ireland. 

If you want to listen to this softening in Northern Irish speech, click here  and choose "Find out about Kenny's mural". The text is here. He softens his t's into d in words like "selected, title, capacity, started" and he occasionally replaces his t's with glottal stops ( Musical Society, settled ).

But the American softening is much more like so-called Spanish r


----------



## liliput

I was surprised by a Spanish student who often deals with Americans as part of his job. He insisted on pronouncing numbers in the American way because apparently the people he dealt with couldn't understand him when he clearly pronounced "twenty-three" or "thirty-four"! He had to say "twenny-three" and "thirdy-four" (the "d" sound is quite soft). Similarly, he would say "warder" (water) and "pardy" (party).
Both American and British dictionaries give the "correct" pronunciation (the "t" sound is the "correct" one in both Britain and America). What the dictionaries can't do is reflect the many regional variations in pronunciation.


----------



## Hotu Matua

mplsray said:


> The person to whom you were replying said it sounded like "priri" and "warer" "to a _Spanish_ ear." A Spanish _r_ in such a position would be quite different from an English _r_. It's a _tap_ (also known as a _flap_) and the symbol used for this sound in the International Phonetic Alphabet looks similar to a small _r_ and may well have been derived from it. To see the IPA symbol, take a look at the Wikipedia article Alveolar tap. The Spanish word _pero,_ for existence, has this sound, and it contrasts with the middle consonant in _perro._
> 
> I know of two dictionaries which show the contrast between British and American English on this subject. One is the Oxford English Dictionary, which in its more recent entries gives both a British and an American pronunciation. For example, the third noun entry for _meter_ in the online OED, listed as "DRAFT REVISION Dec. 2001," shows /t/ for the British pronunciation, /d/ for the American. (I don't have a subscription to the OED, but I have a free subscription to the OED Word of the Day, and this sense of _meter_ was a recent WOTD.)
> 
> The other dictionary is the online Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. In a word such as _butter_ it shows a /t/ in the British pronunciation, while the American has for the alveolar flap a /t/ with a mark underneath it which looks like an upside-down circumflex. I think it's odd that the OED didn't go for some such symbol, instead of using /d/.


 
Thank you very much. This is what I needed.
I needed to know whether there is a Dictionary that explicitly shows these differences. My references were the Oxford and the Longman Advanced Learner's dictionaries, in which no difference is shown.

I am surprised that many American people do not realize that they are not, in fact, pronouncing a /t/, but an entirely different sound, claiming that "speed" is the cause of the phonetic phenomenon.
Yet an educated person from Southern England talking at the same speed of an educated American would nevertheless pronounce the full /t/ sound. Speed is not the explanation. There is a different phonetic value going on here.

I believe that editors compiling American English Dictionaries should assume this pronunciation with pride and sense of identity, and convey it in their books for learners of this beautiful language, just as they do for other phonetic variations. 
.


----------



## ernest_

avok said:


> I have always thought that this is the case for the Scottish-Irish community in Northern Ireland.
> 
> If you want to listen to this softening in Northern Irish speech, click here  and choose "Find out about Kenny's mural". The text is here. He softens his t's into d in words like "selected, title, capacity, started" and he occasionally replaces his t's with glottal stops ( Musical Society, settled ).
> 
> But the American softening is much more like so-called Spanish r



It seems so. But in Scotland they tend to use full-fledged thrilled r's and alveolar flaps. Listen to these old chaps from Leith here, in voice clip 1. They clearly say "barry" the way a typical American would say "batty" in my opinion.


----------



## mplsray

Hotu Matua said:


> Thank you very much. This is what I needed.
> I needed to know whether there is a Dictionary that explicitly shows these differences. My references were the Oxford and the Longman Advanced Learner's dictionaries, in which no difference is shown.
> 
> I am surprised that many American people do not realize that they are not, in fact, pronouncing a /t/, but an entirely different sound, claiming that "speed" is the cause of the phonetic phenomenon.
> Yet an educated person from Southern England talking at the same speed of an educated American would nevertheless pronounce the full /t/ sound. Speed is not the explanation. There is a different phonetic value going on here.
> 
> I believe that editors compiling American English Dictionaries should assume this pronunciation with pride and sense of identity, and convey it in their books for learners of this beautiful language, just as they do for other phonetic variations.
> .


 
I think American dictionaries don't show this as anything other than /t/ because from a phonemic standpoint, it _is_ a /t/: It's a third allophone of /t/, the other two being the /t/ in _top_ and the /t/ in _pot._ When representing pronunciations phonemically, which dictionaries aimed at native speakers do, there is no point in using three symbols for one phoneme.


----------



## modus.irrealis

avok said:


> Yes... because of the stress


I agree, or at least stress is one of the main factors that determines what the t will sound like, but it seems to me that if someone could give rules for it, they would have to be pretty complicated.


----------



## panjandrum

avok said:


> Hey,
> 
> I have always thought that this is the case for the Scottish-Irish community in Northern Ireland.
> 
> If you want to listen to this softening in Northern Irish speech, click here  and choose "Find out about Kenny's mural". The text is here. He softens his t's into d in words like "selected, title, capacity, started" and he occasionally replaces his t's with glottal stops ( Musical Society, settled ).
> 
> But the American softening is much more like so-called Spanish r


Perhaps it is because I am a member of the Scots-Irish community in Northern Ireland that I don't hear the distinction in normal everyday speech here (I can't access the links through my firewall).  On the other hand, I can very definitely identify the t->d softening in US speakers, which makes this rather a puzzle for me.


----------



## RoseLilly

Note that in AE, the middle "tt" is pronounced as a single-flap trilled R.


----------



## JamesM

RoseLilly said:


> Note that in AE, the middle "tt" is pronounced as a single-flap trilled R.


 
Really? I've never heard it described that way. What exactly does that mean? What other words in AE would fall into that category - butter, patter, litter?

I'd like to hear more about "single-flap trilled R". It sounds interesting. It doesn't seem to match my experience of the "t" in "latter", however. My tongue doesn't go to the same place for those "t"s that it would for a Spanish word that had a single "r", if that's what "single-flap trilled R" means.  It hits further forward on my palate.


----------



## elroy

In my experience, "latter" rhyms with "batter."  The "t" sound is the same as the one in "butter."

It's that "d"-ish sound typical of the intervocalic American "t."


----------



## RoseLilly

JamesM said:


> My tongue doesn't go to the same place for those "t"s that it would for a Spanish word that had a single "r", if that's what "single-flap trilled R" means.  It hits further forward on my palate.



Good point.  Spanish prevers the pre-dental position in the palate; English prefers the alveolar ridge.  The single-flap "R" in words like "butter" should occur at the alveolar ridge.



elroy said:


> In my experience, "latter" rhyms with "batter." It's that "d"-ish sound typical of the intervocalic American "t."



"d"-ish sound is the same as what I've tried to describe as a "flap-R" 

Note that the sound occurs intervocalic, but only when the previous syllable is stressed.


----------



## Outsider

RoseLilly said:


> [...] English prefers the alveolar ridge.  The single-flap "R" in words like "butter" should occur at the alveolar ridge.


The Spanish sound is an alveolar flap, too.


----------



## Ynez

be*rr*y, bu*r*y, wa*t*er....Would Americans see any difference between the sounds in *bold*?


----------



## Outsider

The former two are pronounced with an approximant, the "English r", while the latter is pronounced with a flap, the "Spanish r".

That's probably why so many native speakers resist the suggestion that they pronounce the "t" as an "r".


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Ynez said:


> be*rr*y, bu*r*y, wa*t*er....Would Americans see any difference between the sounds in *bold*?


 
"Americans"?  What "Americans"?  Your question seems to suggest that all Americans have the same accent, which of course is a ludicrous idea.

As it is, I know of no Americans who would say that the "rr" in "berry" and the "t" in "water" sound anything like each other.


----------



## Ynez

I am not suggesting anything GreenWhiteBlue, I haven't even been to the United States  But as I hear the _typical_ (in songs, for instance) American *t* in _water_ I understand it like those *r* in _bury_ and _berry_, just stronger.

Outsider, I'd consider the Spanish middle *r* is not as weak as _bury_ and not as strong as _water_. But it's true for Spanish speakers that "American" sound is easier to utter than a pronounced *t*.


----------



## avok

I don't understand why some linguists (or teachers I dont know) insist that the American "t" in "water" is like Spanish "r". I know they sound alike but to me, the "t" in "water" is closer to "d" sound, not the Spanish r. So water sounds like "wader" not "warer".
I looked at some travel guides published for Americans that show the pronunciation of some Spanish words. And always the same note: "pronounce this trilled Spanish r the way you pronounce "t" in water, butter etc." but I think, even using a typical American "r" is far better than using "t" for spanish "r".


----------



## ernest_

avok said:


> I don't understand why some linguists (or teachers I dont know) insist that the American "t" in "water" is like Spanish "r". I know they sound alike but to me, the "t" in "water" is closer to "d" sound, not the Spanish r. So water sounds like "wader" not "warer".



I disagree. Technically speaking, most linguists will say it is a "voiced t",  but this describes more where this sound comes from rather than the very nature of the sound, in my opinion. I find that those used to alveloar flaps and thrills will invariably identify this American intervocalic "d" as a flap. For example, I have recently read a book by Irvine Welsh, a Scottish writer, where he writes the word "Scottish" as "Skarrish", in an attempt to reproduce the American pronunciation. And if pronounce "Skarrish" with a flap it definitely sounds like an American saying "Scottish", whereas if I said "Scaddish" it would be a different word totally unknown to me.


----------



## girl from brazil

When I compare the American and English pronunciation of the letter "t" I notice that it's pronounced like a "d" in AE. Like in the word "letter" AE "leðə" and BE "letə". Or in the word "availabitily" AE like "əveiləbiləði". Could you tell me which is the rule when in AE the letter "t" has the sound of a "ð"? Thank you so much in advance!


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

First, there is no such thing as "*the* American pronunciation" of any word, just as there is no such thing as "*the* British pronunciation."  There are instead many local variations of pronunciation in both North America and Great Britain.  There are also no "rules" when it comes to the pronunciation of anything, other than local usage.


----------



## girl from brazil

Well, I have about the American pronunciation, talking about the general American. I need help about this.


----------



## zapateado

There are people in the US who enunciate "t's" quite clearly, they may even aspirate the end of the sound, sometimes for emphasis.  In contrast there are some words with "t" that are commonly, but not universally, sounded as with "d".  Both forms are sometimes accepted. 
Example: "Itty-bitty" (meaning very diminutive or cute) may become "iddy-biddy".
"Kitty", meaning small cat, can be pronounced "kiddy" and mean both "Kitty" and in plural form as in "kiddies" it can mean "small children" from a pluralizing of the work "kid".


----------



## Joannes

girl from brazil said:


> Could you tell me which is the rule when in AE the letter "t" has the sound of a "ð"? Thank you so much in advance!


It only happens when the /t/ is between two vowels (and the most typical case probably is *gotta*). Mind you, you'd rather not imitate this at all than overdo it.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

girl from brazil said:


> Well, I have about the American pronunciation, talking about the general American. I need help about this.


 
I have given you help: there is no such thing as "general American".  Instead, the best you can do is to choose a location in the United States, and name the ethnicity and  educational level of the speaker.  Even in the same town, people of different backgrounds or different educational levels will not pronounce words the same way.  To believe that there is such a thing as a "general American" way of pronouncing any word is to believe in a fiction.


----------



## Nikola

zapateado said:


> There are people in the US who enunciate "t's" quite clearly, they may even aspirate the end of the sound, sometimes for emphasis.  In contrast there are some words with "t" that are commonly, but not universally, sounded as with "d".  Both forms are sometimes accepted.
> Example: "Itty-bitty" (meaning very diminutive or cute) may become "iddy-biddy".
> "Kitty", meaning small cat, can be pronounced "kiddy" and mean both "Kitty" and in plural form as in "kiddies" it can mean "small children" from a pluralizing of the work "kid".


I have to agree with this. My own experience is that some people almost always say"d" between vowels others almost always say "t". That said most people seem to say both alternating according to the word or the speed at which they are talking. When enunciating usually one says "t".


----------



## kalamazoo

Well of course there are some regional differences, but in general there is such a thing as an American accent.  And yes, in just about all the American accents that I am aware of, "t" is pronounced like "d" at least between two vowels.  Most of us aren't really even aware that we do this. My son went to an English babysitter when he was about two years old and started saying waTer with a nice crisp "t" sound, but in fact we almost all say "wadder" instead of "water" (I write "wadder" with two d's to be more phonetic and to avoid confusion with "wader" which of course is pronounced completely differently.).   Anyway, there are American accents, British accents, Australian accents and so on, but each of those has lots of regional variation that is probably much more significant to local ears than to people from other countries. To us, all Australians sound pretty similar, but I would guess that to an Australian, different regional Australian accents are pretty distinct. However, that's a bit of a different topic. Yes, we mostly do pronounce "T" like "D" in contrast to, say, a British accent (whatever that is).


----------



## Wordsmyth

Joannes said:


> It only happens when the /t/ is between two vowels (and the most typical case probably is *gotta*). Mind you, you'd rather not imitate this at all than overdo it.


 
Just to delve a little deeper into that, it can be a 't' between two vowels (*Peter*), or 'tt' (*better*), or "t t" (*got to* > _gotta_). Also with "t d", the "d" will dominate (*what do you* > _whaddya_).

But, in line with Joannes, I wouldn't recommend that you try to reproduce it just to communicate with Americans — just use your own natural pronunciation of 't' — unless of course you're acting a role on stage, with a particular accent! 

Ws


----------



## girl from brazil

Wordsmyth said:


> Just to delve a little deeper into that, it can be a 't' between two vowels (*Peter*), or 'tt' (*better*), or "t t" (*got to* > _gotta_). Also with "t d", the "d" will dominate (*what do you* > _whaddya_).
> 
> But, in line with Joannes, I wouldn't recommend that you try to reproduce it just to communicate with Americans — just use your own natural pronunciation of 't' — unless of course you're acting a role on stage, with a particular accent!
> 
> Ws


 
I plan to move to US, so I'd like to use this "d" pronunciation, I think that it's the best thing to do if most of Americans speak like this.


----------



## girl from brazil

kalamazoo said:


> Well of course there are some regional differences, but in general there is such a thing as an American accent. And yes, in just about all the American accents that I am aware of, "t" is pronounced like "d" at least between two vowels. Most of us aren't really even aware that we do this. My son went to an English babysitter when he was about two years old and started saying waTer with a nice crisp "t" sound, but in fact we almost all say "wadder" instead of "water" (I write "wadder" with two d's to be more phonetic and to avoid confusion with "wader" which of course is pronounced completely differently.). Anyway, there are American accents, British accents, Australian accents and so on, but each of those has lots of regional variation that is probably much more significant to local ears than to people from other countries. To us, all Australians sound pretty similar, but I would guess that to an Australian, different regional Australian accents are pretty distinct. However, that's a bit of a different topic. Yes, we mostly do pronounce "T" like "D" in contrast to, say, a British accent (whatever that is).


 

Your explanation is very clear, but what do you mean when you say that between "wadder" and "wader" there's a great difference? Thanks!


----------



## kalamazoo

"Wader" is an existing English word, with the "a" pronounced conpletely differently than the "a' in "water."  It's like the "a" in "made" or "shade."  The "a" in "water" is like the "a" in "father."  (Sorry I don't know the phonetic symbols or names, but the sound is quite different."


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

kalamazoo said:


> The "a" in "water" is like the "a" in "father."


 The "a" in "water" may be like the "a" in "father" in your accent (and it is probably an accent in which the words "cot" and "caught" are thought to rhyme), but they certainly are not the same in mine (and the cot/caught merger has not happened here, either.) I can also take you to neighborhoods in this city where "t" is not only pronounced as a "t", and not a "d", but is aspirated to boot. I can then take you to other neighborhoods where the double "t" in words such as "bottle" becomes a glottal stop. This points out the problem of assuming that one's own accent is the same accent used by all of one's countrymen.

Girl from Brazil, if you want to pronounce words in the same way as your new neighbors in the United States, then you must first determine where in the United States you will be living, and then discover what the accent used there entails, because all Americans simply do _*not *_pronounce words the same way.


----------



## Wordsmyth

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> Girl from Brazil, if you want to pronounce words in the same way as your new neighbors in the United States, then you must first determine where in the United States you will be living, and then discover what the accent used there entails [...]


 
... and I'd suggest that the best way to do that is to wait until you get there. You'll then quite naturally pick up what you hear, and won't run the risk of sounding 'artificial' (or worse, sounding as if you're mocking the locals!).

That's not just theory. I know a French girl who was going to live in London; she carefully cultivated a strong East End of London accent (including the glottal 'tt': see GWB's comment), by listening to audio tapes. When she arrived, she found herself living and working with people from all over the UK and elsewhere, who had a big problem understanding her English! 

Ws


----------



## KHS

There are general patterns to T pronunciation in American English:

at the beginning of a stressed syllable, followed by a vowel, you will usually get the T sound that we all think of as being T, and it is aspirated (a puff of air follows it)
examples: talk, return (second syllable is stressed), top

after an [s] at the beginning of a syllable, it is still a T sound, but it is NOT aspirated (no puff of air)
examples: stem, stop

between vowel sounds when it does not begin a stressed syllable, it is often a "flap D" 
examples: little, better, patted

at the end of a word, followed by a word that begins with a consonant, it is often "unreleased" - that is, your tongue goes to the position for the sound, but does not actually "release" it. However, it does affect any preceding sounds (vowels get less "length" of sound)
examples: caught me, bought five

Before an 'n', it is often a glottal stop
example:  gotten, written


----------



## Æsop

girl from brazil said:


> Could you tell me which is the rule when in AE the letter "t" has the sound of a "ð"? Thank you so much in advance!


 
I don't think a spelled or written "t" in AE is ever pronounced "ð," which is one of the pronunciations of the digraph *th,* as in _bath _or _thick.  _I don't think there is any place in the US where "bat" and "bath" or "tick" and "thick" are pronounced the same.


----------



## JamesM

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> Girl from Brazil, if you want to pronounce words in the same way as your new neighbors in the United States, then you must first determine where in the United States you will be living, and then discover what the accent used there entails, because all Americans simply do _*not *_pronounce words the same way.


 
This reminds me of a professor I had in college who was German, learned British English growing up, spent some time in New York followed by several years in Texas, a few years in Chicago, and ended up in Idaho. She had learned different words in English at different times in her life with different accents. Sometimes the sound of one sentence with Texan, Chicagoan, Brooklyn and British accents on various words was the strangest thing I had ever heard.

I agree with GWB. Even on one block in one region with a strong specific accent you will hear half a dozen different ways that some words are pronounced. We are not as homogenous in accent as our television shows make us out to be.


----------



## Nunty

A very long time ago I did a course in teaching ESL and EFL in an American university. One major eye opener was this question of pronunciation.

It appears that in American English clipped pronunciation of consonants indicates displeasure, even anger. This is particularly clear with the letters _t_ and _d_. I don't remember anything about IPA, though I do remember being taught it, so please bear with me.

I speak with an accent very much like the "Standard American English" we used to hear on the TV, no strong regional characteristics. In normal daily conversation, I might say, "I wanyou to do that." If I were to pronounce the final _t_ in _want_ and start the _y_ in _you_ very distinctly, the person I'm addressing would very likely hear a note of impatience or command.

This slurring is not always so pronounced, but generally we do not have a very clipped pronunciation. Nor do we drop final consonants completely.

I'm not sure if this is at all helpful.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

Æsop said:


> I don't think there is any place in the US where "bat" and "bath" or "tick" and "thick" are pronounced the same.


I grew up in Minnesota, as second generation Swedish-American.  

It was very common for adults whom I met to pronounce all "th" sounds at the beginnings and endings of words as as "t".  "Bat" and "bath" and "tick" and "thick" were (and still are) pronounced identically.  This was common even among adults who spoke English as their first language, but who had been raised in a Scandinavian household.

The size of that linguistic group is probably shrinking, but it sill is heard, particularly in the northern part of the state.  In my last trip to Duluth about ten years ago this pronunciation was still common.  Having grown up with it I scarcely noticed, but the people I was traveling found it extremely amusing to be welcomed to "Dulut" and to be told, "well now, tat's a different ting, isn't it?"


----------



## natkretep

Outsider said:


> I have to say, Hotu, that sometimes when I hear Spanish speakers pronounce the intervocalic -t-/-d- the American way it doesn't sound quite right -- more like the Spanish "r" than it should be. Perhaps it's the elusive difference between a flap and a tap.



It's not only Spanish speakers who use the alveolar tap to represent the 'r' sound. It is also used in Scottish English! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_tap


----------



## Wordsmyth

Æsop said:


> [...] I don't think there is any place in the US where "bat" and "bath" or "tick" and "thick" are pronounced the same.


 
To add to Basil's Minnesota/Swedish example, there is also New York. I don't mean all New Yorkers of course, but those whose accent originated in the Italian, Irish &/or Jewish communities (and maybe others?) — not surprisingly as there's no 'th' sound in Italian, I'm guessing also not in Yiddish or Hebrew (?), and the 'th' is often pronounced as 't' in Irish English.

Ws


----------



## Leica

avok said:


> I don't understand why some linguists (or teachers I dont know) insist that the American "t" in "water" is like Spanish "r". I know they sound alike but to me, the "t" in "water" is closer to "d" sound, not the Spanish r. So water sounds like "wader" not "warer".
> I looked at some travel guides published for Americans that show the pronunciation of some Spanish words. And always the same note: "pronounce this trilled Spanish r the way you pronounce "t" in water, butter etc." but I think, even using a typical American "r" is far better than using "t" for spanish "r".



The American "r" is a completely different sound, using "t" for "r" sounds right to me. Not perfect but much better than the "r". 

Many people here in germany are not able to produce the Spanish "r" sound and I used to teach friends to pronounce it by telling them to say "bd" very fast. If you practice a little it becomes a sound pretty identical to the spanish "r". The position of the tongue is very similar.
To me the American "d" in water is a sound between "r" and "d" but given that spanish speaking people are very familiar with the "r" sound they are more likely to identify the sound as "r". For me it's more a "d" than a "r" because I don't have the Spanish "r" sound in my native dialect.


I hope it's okay to push the topic?


----------



## valdemar

<< bottle / boddle: American pronunciation. >>

Hi, Everybody. I was wondering how do you distinguish when using this words in American English. When I hear you pronounce them I think you say them in the same way. Maybe I'm confussed, could you please explain me. The same happens for example with baddle and battle. 


Thank you very much.

<< Moderator's note.  Always includetopic in the post itself.  The thread title may be changed, as it was in this case. >>


----------



## Sedulia

It's not a problem because boddle and baddle are not words in English, so there is no confusion.


----------



## natkretep

Mod note: valdemar's thread (beginning with post 84) has been merged with a mega thread.  Please read the earlier posts.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Sedulia said:


> It's not a problem because boddle and baddle are not words in English, so there is no confusion.


 However there are many, many words where confusion could occur:

- The man's a trader (traitor?/trader?).
- Wait in the bathroom (wait?/wade?)
- Kitty corner (kitty?/kiddy?)
- Where's my golf ball? Sorry, I hit it (hit?/hid?)
- ...... etcedera, etcedera, etcedera 

To answer your question, valdemar, you can usually distinguish by the context. If not, ask! : "Is that trader with a _t_ or trader with a _d _?"

Ws


----------



## berndf

Wordsmyth said:


> ...
> - Wait in the bathroom (wait?/wade?)
> ...
> - Where's my golf ball? Sorry, I hit it (hit?/hid?)


These example are of a different quality, though. While many (most?) General American speakers do not distinguish between intervocalic -t- and -d- at all, word-final -d and -t are audibly distinct. This distinction is very subtle (it mainly relies on the audibility of the plosive release) and can easily be missed in noisier environments; but in good acoustic conditions GA speakers usually don't fail to recognize it.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I agree, bernd, that when a word-final _t_ or _d_ is in an absolute final position or precedes a consonant, the distinction is clear. But when it precedes an initial vowel in the following word (as in my _wait_ and _hit_ examples), it becomes effectively intervocalic. I doubt that even GA-speakers would distinguish between the pronunciation of the _t_ in "Wait in there" and that in "Waiting there", unless they forced a pause for effect after _wait_.

Even if one GA-speaker could recognise a difference when listening to another GA-speaker, most Americans don't speak GA (just as the majority of Brits don't speak RP). I would suggest that in many cases the plosive-release distinction is neglible or even zero.

Even if it is subtly present (and the acoustic conditions are right!), the sound is still closer to a _d_ than to a _t_, at least to non-American ears. So for valdemar and many others, including non-American anglophones, I'd say that the potential for confusion exists even in the _wait/hit_ examples.

Ws


----------



## berndf

Wordsmyth said:


> I agree, bernd, that when a word-final _t_ or _d_ is in an absolute final position or precedes a consonant, the distinction is clear. But when it precedes an initial vowel in the following word (as in my _wait_ and _hit_ examples), it becomes effectively intervocalic. I doubt that even GA-speakers would distinguish between the pronunciation of the _t_ in "Wait in there" and that in "Waiting there", unless they forced a pause for effect after _wait_.


I remain skeptical. If this were so then _wade in, wait in, wadin'_  and _waitin'_ should all be indistinguishable which, I think, is not the case. I would argue that a short hiatus is maintained in the first two.



Wordsmyth said:


> Even if it is subtly present (and the acoustic conditions are right!), the sound is still closer to a _d_ than to a _t_, at least to non-American ears.


Sure, to my ears too. But this is because we both have native languages that distinguish /d/ and /t/ primarily by aspiration. This does not necessarily apply to a Spanish native speaker.


----------



## LilianaB

berndf said:


> These example are of a different quality, though. While many (most?) General American speakers do not distinguish between intervocalic -t- and -d- at all, word-final -d and -t are audibly distinct. This distinction is very subtle (it mainly relies on the audibility of the plosive release) and can easily be missed in noisier environments; but in good acoustic conditions GA speakers usually don't fail to recognize it.



Yes, I agree. They are different, although they may seem the same. The t sound in _waiting _is a flap, in many varieties of AE.


----------



## Wordsmyth

berndf said:


> I remain skeptical. If this were so then _wade in, wait in, wadin'_  and _waitin'_ should all be indistinguishable which, I think, is not the case. I would argue that a short hiatus is maintained in the first two. _[...]_


 Agreed that in theory you would expect one, but I'm basing my reflections on many years of conversation with Americans (in the US and elsewhere), and honestly I usually can't distinguish between "wade in" and "wait in", or (since that example doesn't come up every day!) between other words with final _d/t_ sounds when the next word begins with a vowel. Spoken at normal conversational speed, without particular emphasis, I don't detect any hiatus; the /d/ and /t/ become effectively intervocalic.  

However, on further reflection, and having just done a few trials with some American colleagues, perhaps I should retract my _wait in / waitin' _comparison. There is a noticeable difference, though it seems to me to come not from hiatus, but from the different pronunciation of the /i/, which can tend more towards a schwa in _waitin' _and in turn affects the pronunciation of the /t/. Of course, that's a generalisation, and the effect will vary significantly across different AE variants.  



berndf said:


> _[...]_  But this is because we both have native languages that distinguish /d/ and /t/ primarily by aspiration. This does not necessarily apply to a Spanish native speaker.


 Aspiration, yes, but also /d/ is voiced and /t/ is not (even in Spanish, _¿no? _: I've just checked _nada_ and _nata_ with a native Spanish speaker: although the /d/ is a hard _th_ sound, it's still voiced and barely aspirated, whereas the /t/ is unvoiced and aspirated). 



LilianaB said:


> Yes, I agree. They are different, although they may seem the same. _[...]_


 I think that sums it up very nicely, Liliana. If they seem the same, then for all practical purposes the potential confusion is there. Perception is everything! Although they are actually different, the difference is academic and without real effect if it's not perceived by a listener.

It would be interesting to know whether valdemar hears any difference between, say, "hit it" and "hid it" in AE.



Sedulia said:


> It's not a problem because boddle and baddle are not words in English, so there is no confusion.


What, Sedulia? You've never heard of the 17th/18th-century Scottish coin with a value of ½ a groat? A _boddle_.
... Or of the sporting event combining kayaking and cycling? A _baddle_.
I'm sure they were what valdemar was thinking of.

A fascinating thread, this : it's turning over a number of stones I hadn't previously looked under. 

Ws


----------



## HistofEng

As an AE speaker, I fully concur with Wordsmyth.


----------



## ribran

Wordsmyth said:


> It would be interesting to know whether valdemar hears any difference between, say, "hit it" and "hid it" in AE.



I may need to ask around more or do some more reading, but for me and nearly all the people I've spoken to about this, there's a clear difference between the two. We pronounce the consonant the same but preserve the length distinction that I imagine BrE speakers have.


----------



## Wordsmyth

OK, ribran, it looks as if I'm outnumbered on the question of whether there's a difference, though I wonder if this comes back to bernd's point in post #88: that the difference is recognised by AmE (or at least GA) speakers; but it probably isn't detected by most non-AmE speakers (and apparently not by HistofEng, whose AmE may not be GA?).

As for what the difference is, I think I'm missing something. Could you expand on 'the length distinction'? (As an essentially BrE speaker, maybe I have it without knowing!). Is it the length of one of the vowels concerned? ... or of the hiatus (if any) between the words?, ... or..? 

Ws


----------



## kalamazoo

I think it depends on context.  If I am talking about a baseball game and I say a player 'hit it' out of the park, I probably say "hid it" phonetically speaking, because there isn't much room if any for misunderstanding.  If there is some possibility for confusion as to whether someone "hid" or "hit" something, I would probably speak a little more carefully and distinguish the two.  I am not sure whether my 't' in 'hit' would be considered a real 't' but the vowel sound would be slightly different and more forward, so the two words don't sound the same.


----------



## ribran

Wordsmyth said:


> As for what the difference is, I think I'm missing something. Could you expand on 'the length distinction'? (As an essentially BrE speaker, maybe I have it without knowing!). Is it the length of one of the vowels concerned? ... or of the hiatus (if any) between the words?, ... or..?
> 
> Ws



Hi Ws,

I'm referring to the fact that in English, vowels before voiced consonants at the end of stressed syllables (as in _hi__*d *it_) are longer than vowels before voiceless consonants in the same environment (as in _hi*t* it_). Some Americans have "lost" this conditioning environment, but not its effects, and pronounce the sounds as if they were followed by different consonants.


----------



## duvija

ribran said:


> Hi Ws,
> 
> I'm referring to the fact that in English, vowels before voiced consonants at the end of stressed syllables (as in _hi__*d *it_) are longer than vowels before voiceless consonants in the same environment (as in _hi*t* it_). Some Americans have "lost" this conditioning environment but not its effects and pronounce the sounds as if they were followed by different consonants.



Absolutely right.


----------



## berndf

Wordsmyth said:


> Aspiration, yes, but also /d/ is voiced and /t/ is not (even in Spanish, _¿no? _: I've just checked _nada_ and _nata_ with a native Spanish speaker: although the /d/ is a hard _th_ sound, it's still voiced and barely aspirated, whereas the /t/ is unvoiced and aspirated).


You misunderstood me. It is the other way round. Spaniards do distinguish between voiced and unvoiced when distinguishing /d/ and /d/ and Americans in word final /d/ and /t/ too. We, Brits and Germans, don't. We need to hear some aspirations to identify a /t/ as a "proper" /t/. That's why word final GE /t/s sound so "d-ish" to us.



Wordsmyth said:


> OK, ribran, it looks as if I'm outnumbered on the question of whether there's a difference, though I wonder if this comes back to bernd's point in post #88: that the difference is recognised by AmE (or at least GA) speakers; but it probably isn't detected by most non-AmE speakers (and apparently not by HistofEng, whose AmE may not be GA?).
> 
> As for what the difference is, I think I'm missing something. Could you expand on 'the length distinction'? (As an essentially BrE speaker, maybe I have it without knowing!). Is it the length of one of the vowels concerned? ... or of the hiatus (if any) between the words?, ... or..?
> s
> Ws


Independently of special considerations when a final /t/ is followed by a vowel, the final GA /t/ is in principal identified by a voiceless plosive release though in casual speech it is indeed often omitted. This thread might interest you. On page three you find a discussion of length of the preceding vowel to support final /-d/ - /-t/ distinction in GA. as Ribran described it.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Thanks for your feedback, ribran and bernd, which led me to reflect further on the "hit/hid it" question, and on vowel lengthening before voiced/voiceless consonants in general. 

I have previously come across the concept that you raise in post #97, ribran, but I guess I consigned it to that mental archive of theories that I haven't found to be demonstrated in practice. And yet the phenomenon is well documented and supported, at least by those who have an advanced knowledge of phonetics. Dilemma? Well, virtually all the related articles, WR threads, and other serious sources I've read admit that they apply to 'standard' forms of the language, and that regional or other variants may differ significantly.

So I ran through some recordings I have of different accents of the English-speaking world. Concentrating very hard on vowels before /t/ and /d/ in stressed syllables, I did (just) pick up that vowel length distinction in a few of the accents, but couldn't detect it at all in most of them. The West Country (south-west of England) accents particularly caught my attention: many vowel sounds are extremely long (IPA would need a sign something like ːːː to truly represent them!). So any difference there may be in vowel length before voiced and voiceless consonants would be like a drop in the ocean, and effectively undetectable. In fact, I noticed that the same word can have radically different vowel lengths according to its position in the sentence or the emphasis placed by the speaker, so that _hit_ (or equivalent) could be shorter than _hid_ on one occasion, but longer than _hid_ on another!

There are also several references in the various sources to the conditioning of individuals: that what you hear depends on how your ear is trained. So now I put two and two together (and maybe get four?). I spent most of my formative years in the aforementioned West Country. Although I don't speak with a regional accent, I suspect that the 'norms' established by my brain have been influenced by that environment. So perhaps I (and doubtless many others whose conditioning has had a similar effect) don't hear the subtle difference we're discussing here because the brain isn't attuned to it.

I conclude from all this that the vowel-length difference in question is present in some people's speech, but not in others; and when it is present, it's heard by some and not by others. I find particularly pertinent the comments in posts #19 (last two paras), #20 and #26 of this thread on vowel lengthening.  Once again, perception is everything: what matters to people's understanding is not what a technical analysis determines, but what people hear (or think they hear, which comes down to the same thing).

Now all this came out of my suggestion that _'hit it / hid it'_ had the same characteristics as _traitor/trader_ (or valdemar's _bottle/boddle_). If I take your definition, ribran (post #97), that vowels before voiced consonants at the end of stressed syllables are longer than vowels before voiceless consonants in the same environment, then wouldn't that make _traitor _as different from _trader_ (or _bottle_ from _boddle_) as _hit it_ is from _hid it_*?* Yet I understand bernd as saying (posts #88 and #90)) that GA-speakers don't usually distinguish between intervocalic -t- and -d- at all (i.e. no difference between _traitor_ and _trader_), but that _hit it_ and _hid it_ are audibly distinct because the /t/ and /d/ are word-final and there's a hiatus. 
So I'm still a bit puzzled. 

(By the way, I'm still skeptical about the hiatus because, as most texts on speech segmentation point out, in normal speech quite long sequences of words are spoken with no pauses between them, and the listener's brain then inserts virtual pauses based on a knowledge of the written words. Could that be where your hiatus is coming from, bernd?)

After all that, I expect valdemar is more 'confussed' than ever.

Ws


----------



## kalamazoo

I am pretty confused also, but I think, perhaps incorrectly, that in my California regional accent, I can readily distinguish if necessary between "traitor" and "trader" (but I assume that if I say someone is a "day-trader" or a "traitor to his country" there is no real need) or "hit it" vs "hid it."  I only do this in careful speech. So to me it's more analogous to "gonna" which I say a lot of the time and "going to" which I say in more careful speech. I think the difference is voicing.


----------



## berndf

kalamazoo said:


> I am pretty confused also, but I think, perhaps incorrectly, that in my California regional accent, I can readily distinguish if necessary between "traitor" and "trader" (but I assume that if I say someone is a "day-trader" or a "traitor to his country" there is no real need) or "hit it" vs "hid it."  I only do this in careful speech. So to me it's more analogous to "gonna" which I say a lot of the time and "going to" which I say in more careful speech. I think the difference is voicing.


This very much depends on on the register. The "tapped" intervocalic t/d is typical for colloquial registers, not for higher registers as one would use in official speeches or when a speaker is asked to pronounce a word "correctly" in isolation.


----------



## kalamazoo

I think that may be the same as what I was saying.  However, it's not necessarily really "register" - I would say it's the pronunciation that I would use if I perceive some possibility for confusion.  For instance,if someone asks me "Did Steve hide the ball or hit it" I already know that there is some possibility for confusion if I say either "he hit it" or "he hid it" and so I would pronounce my answer more carefully, even though it is not an official speech!


----------



## Imber Ranae

Wordsmyth said:


> - Wait in the bathroom (wait?/wade?)



These don't sound the same. 'wait in' has a glottal stop in most American dialects, because the following n of 'in' (which has a reduced vowel) conditions the t to become a glottal stop, but does not do so with d. That's why 'written' and 'ridden' are not homophones in AE, despite 'latter' and 'ladder' being such.


LilianaB said:


> Yes, I agree. They are different, although they may seem the same. The t sound in _waiting _is a flap, in many varieties of AE.



_waiting_ has a flap, and is homophonous with _wading_, but _waitin'_ has a glottal stop.


----------



## JamesM

I don't think there is a glottal stop in most American dialects, Imber Ranae, if you mean something that would sound like wai' in' (or like No, you di' in' for No, you didn't).   I'd like to see something that corroborated that statement.  Out of the dozens of people I come into contact with on a regular basis there are only two or three who speak with glottal stops.


----------



## Imber Ranae

JamesM said:


> I don't think there is a glottal stop in most American dialects, Imber Ranae, if you mean something that would sound like wai' in' (or like No, you di' in' for No, you didn't).   I'd like to see something that corroborated that statement.  Out of the dozens of people I come into contact with on a regular basis there are only two or three who speak with glottal stops.



So you pronounced "ridden" and "written" the same, then? Just because it's not over-emphasized does not mean the glottal stop doesn't exist.


----------



## JamesM

A glottal stop, to me, requires dropping the consonant entirely.  The "t"s in "written", to me, are explosive but unvoiced.  Those are two different things.

So, to answer your question, "written" and "ridden" can sound the same in casual, unconscious speech, but if I am pronouncing them carefully I still don't use a glottal stop.  My tongue moves between my teeth and presses on the top teeth as air is expelled. In a glottal stop no air is expelled.  The sound is stopped in the throat.


----------



## Imber Ranae

JamesM said:


> A glottal stop, to me, requires dropping the consonant entirely.  The "t"s in "written", to me, are explosive but unvoiced.  Those are two different things.
> 
> So, to answer your question, "written" and "ridden" can sound the same in casual, unconscious speech, but if I am pronouncing them carefully I still don't use a glottal stop.  My tongue moves between my teeth and presses on the top teeth as air is expelled. In a glottal stop no air is expelled.  The sound is stopped in the throat.



No, 'written' and 'ridden' don't sound the same, which was my point. It only affects t, not d, so 'ridden' has an alveolar-flap. The _di'-n'_ pronunciation of "didn't" is nonstandard for this reason, but I believe some varieties of AE like AAVE do glottalize the d in certain environments, which accounts for that particular pronunciation.


----------



## natkretep

Yes, I'm surprised to hear about glottal stops in these contexts in AmE. I only hear them when /t/ is followed by a syllabic /n/, as in Latin [ˈlæʔ̩n̩] or Milton.


----------



## Imber Ranae

natkretep said:


> Yes, I'm surprised to hear about glottal stops in these contexts in AmE. I only hear them when /t/ is followed by a syllabic /n/, as in Latin [ˈlæʔ̩n̩] or Milton.



That's what the n in "written" is, a syllabic /n/. The preposition 'in' is frequently reduced to syllabic /n/ in speech as well.


----------



## duvija

a) I have a couple of problems with this thread - and they are are a phonetician's nightmare. I understand you try to 'hear' the length of a vowel, without measuring it to make sure you're not adding or substracting a couple of milliseconds here and there, without noticing it. I used to have the same problem, and frankly, without a nice spectrogram, we may royally screw up. 

As much as I agree that 100 people will pronounce a word with different vowel lengths, also another 100 will hear them differently. The length is not an artifact due to the use of a computer program.

b) With any decent spectrogram, you'll find out the enormous number of glottal stops you have in English. I'm a native Spanish speaker, and trust me, I don't need the spectrogram to hear them. But, just in case, of course I do them. Lots and lots. You may not believe me, but it's pretty well known. 
Of course, you may say that the length of the glottal stop is important, and you may be right. With English ears, you catch only the 'long' ones. But... check the spectr... (sorry, I always have to use the same annoying words).


----------



## berndf

You are absolutely right, Duvija. For timing, as for some other phonetic features, native speakers' perception can be horribly wrong and misleading. Everybody who has ever studied phonetics knows that.

As you certainly know English features final devoicing but contrary to other West Germanic languages (Dutch and German) without phonemic neutralization. There have been some studies suggesting that timing plays a role in voiced-unvoiced fricative separation (see e.g. this thread; the link there is unfortunately dead but if you are interested I'll try to dig up a copy; just drop me a PM). As for the role timing might play for voiced/unvoiced phoneme separation in final plosives I only found this.


----------



## duvija

berndf said:


> You are absolutely right, Duvija. For timing, as for some other phonetic features, native speakers' perception can be horribly wrong and misleading. Everybody who has ever studied phonetics knows that.
> 
> As you certainly know English features final devoicing but contrary to other West Germanic languages (Dutch and German) without phonemic neutralization. There have been some studies suggesting that timing plays a role in voiced-unvoiced fricative separation (see e.g. this thread; the link there is unfortunately dead but if you are interested I'll try to dig up a copy; just drop me a PM). As for the role timing might play for voiced/unvoiced phoneme separation in final plosives I only found this.



Yes, the thread is broken and the second one refuses my attempts to grab it. (If you can find another thread, I'll effusively thank you ). I have some (well, lots of) stuff about Spanish vs. English, but I can't find the Eng/German distinction.


----------



## Wordsmyth

duvija said:


> _[...]_ I understand you try to 'hear' the length of a vowel, without measuring it to make sure you're not adding or substracting a couple of milliseconds here and there, without noticing it. I used to have the same problem, and frankly, without a nice spectrogram, we may royally screw up. _[...] _


 The problem is that most people don't walk around with a spectrogram to analyse every conversation they have. If they did, my earlier advice to valdemar might have been to say _"According to the vowel length indicated by my spectrogram, I assume you just said trader with a /d/"._ However, if he doesn't have one, then he's stuck with hearing like most people – with his ears! So to avoid royally screwing up, he may still have to ask _"Is that traitor with a __t or trader with a d ?"_


berndf said:


> _[...]_ For timing, as for some other phonetic features, native speakers' perception can be horribly wrong and misleading. Everybody who has ever studied phonetics knows that._ [...]_


 I guess the question there, bernd, is "Wrong for whom?". For a phonetician needing precise data for a study (which I'm sure is what you meant), yes indeed: don't trust a mere mortal's opinion; get out the spectrogram. But for someone using spoken language to communicate, then the listener's perception is the only thing that matters — and if that's the same perception as the speaker's, then it can't really be considered wrong or misleading.  

It's a bit like the story of the bus driver who found that the only way to keep to his schedule was not to stop to pick up passengers. For the dispatcher, to stop would be horribly wrong. For the passengers it's the opposite — and it's their perception that matters to the company's profitability! 

Ws


----------



## duvija

Wordsmyth said:


> The problem is that most people don't walk around with a spectrogram to analyse every conversation they have. . But for someone using spoken language to communicate, then the listener's perception is the only thing that matters — and if that's the same perception as the speaker's, then it can't really be considered wrong or misleading.
> 
> Ws



Agreed. Then the only option is to ask thousands of people, and then analyze the answers. If you tell me you've heard it 3 or 4 times, then it's anecdotal and unreliable. Most studies (a little oldish, let's say) were done with too few subjects.


----------



## berndf

Wordsmyth said:


> and if that's the same perception as the speaker's


This is precisely not the case here. If we try to communicate phonetic characteriscs to speakers of a different language or dialect we have to make some afford to describe thing in objective terms because he simply does not have the same perception.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Agreed, bernd. My comment referred to the generalisation that "native speakers' perception can be horribly wrong". But in this case, if we're talking about how Mexican Spanish speakers, or Brits or Germans or whoever, hear American speech, then I agree that the perceptions won't necessarily be the same.

This thread seems to be happening at two different levels: 

- Those who may not have a strong academic understanding of phonetics are discussing *what* they hear or think they hear (i.e their perception), and are addressing such things as *whether* others have the same perception, *whether* certain phenomena are widespread, *whether* certain features have an effect on communication, ... . 

- Others are focussing more on *how* and *why* certain sounds are made, providing explanations based on a good knowledge of phonetics.

Your point, duvija, that (if you don't have a spectrogram handy) _"the only option is to ask thousands of people, and then analyze the answers"_ is valid for a phonetician wanting to make an accurate study. However, for someone just wondering whether, in speaking to Americans, he should pronounce an intervocalic /t/ 'more like a _d_ or more like a _t'_, neither the spectrogram nor the thousands-of-people survey is a practical option. On the other hand, he might gain some useful insight by asking the advice of just a few people. 

Similarly, bernd, communicating phonetic characteristics to that person by describing things in objective terms may indeed be accurate and enlightening. But when it comes down to it, he's probably not going to stand in front of a mirror practising flaps and taps and shaving a few microseconds off vowel lengths. He's more likely just to decide to pronounce that /t/ 'more like a _d_ or more like a _t'_ — and when he does that he'll do it by imitating what he's heard from others (i.e. based on perception).

So ... horses for courses.

Ws


----------



## berndf

Wordsmyth said:


> Similarly, bernd, communicating phonetic characteristics to that person by describing things in objective terms may indeed be accurate and enlightening. But when it comes down to it, he's probably not going to stand in front of a mirror practising flaps and taps and shaving a few microseconds off vowel lengths. He's more likely just to decide to pronounce that /t/ 'more like a _d_ or more like a _t'_ — and when he does that he'll do it by imitating what he's heard from others (i.e. based on perception).


Let us come back to the context where this was said: The issue here was that American native speakers said they distinguish _hid_ and _hit_ by the length of the vowel /ɪ/. Duvija gave a word of caution that perception of length is often not related to actual measurable length and that such a description might therefore be more misleading than helpful to a non native speaker. And I supported her statement _in general _because such misperceptions do indeed happen in many languages. I also said that is this particular case, distinction of voiced and unvoiced final obstruents, there are studies suggesting that these distinctions are indeed supported by variation of phoneme length, both of the final consonant and the preceding vowel but that the studies I know pertain to fricatives and not to plosives and that I have to search for studies about final plosives.


----------



## kalamazoo

To get back to the original question, I would say yes in AE, words like "better" "tatter"and "butter" are pronounced with a "d" sound and not a "t" sound.  And we say "shaddup" or "shuddup" for "shut up."  In these cases,there are no real distinctions needed because we don't have the words "bedder" or "budder" except perhaps in some specialized context. Can we distinguish "hit it" from "hid it"? Yes, we are able to if it is necessary. This to me is sort like "fifty" versus "fifteen" - two words that often get confused in speech but which we can distinguish when necessary.


----------



## Wordsmyth

berndf said:


> _[...]_ but that the studies I know pertain to fricatives and not to plosives and that I have to search for studies about final plosives.


 Happy searching 

Ws


----------



## berndf

kalamazoo said:


> To get back to the original question, I would say yes in AE, words like "better" "tatter"and "butter" are pronounced with a "d" sound and not a "t" sound.  And we say "shaddup" or "shuddup" for "shut up."  In these cases,there are no real distinctions needed because we don't have the words "bedder" or "budder" except perhaps in some specialized context. Can we distinguish "hit it" from "hid it"? Yes, we are able to if it is necessary. This to me is sort like "fifty" versus "fifteen" - two words that often get confused in speech but which we can distinguish when necessary.


A very practical and down to earth summary.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I'll second that.

Ws


----------



## berndf

Wordsmyth said:


> Happy searching
> 
> Ws


Thank you.


----------



## Firas123

Hi

I'm wondering how to pronounce "Whatever, Latest and Later" in American English?

I don't get it why the Americans don't pronounce the "t", I've seen some people who pronounce it like "d".

(merged thread)


----------



## cyberpedant

Both /t/ and /d/ are lingua-alveolar stops (click here for a demo). The difference between them is that /t/ is unvoiced, /d/ is voiced. In AE, most native speakers will voice a /t/ when it comes between two vowels—sometimes only one preceding or following vowel is necessary to cause the transformation—thus changing it to /d/. One sure way to detect a "foreign accent" is to listen for precisely pronounced /t/s. 

Welcome to the forum, Firas123.


----------



## Firas123

Hmm, okay

so we pronounce ["Later" - Lader ] - ["Latest" - Ladest] - ["Seattle" - Seadle] - ["Whatever" - Wha(d)ever]?

I really want to learn how to pronounce the t when It comes between two vowels.

Thanks for your help buddy.


----------



## Myridon

In my opinion, trying to pronounce a /t/ exactly like a /d/ could also make you sound foreign.  It's better to aim for an exact pronunciation and miss by a tiny bit (which is what native speakers are doing in this case), than to intentionally miss the target which could cause you to miss it by quite a bit.   In other words, if there was a word "lader" (a person who lades), then "The lader will come later." would not sound exactly like "The lader will come lader" to a native speaker.


----------



## natkretep

This will be obvious to many, but I think it's worth pointing out that there are other native speakers of English who will not voice the /t/ in that context to produce a /d/-like sound.


----------



## JulianStuart

<<moderator note - the posts from #124 on have been merged with this older thread above.  please check the earlier responses before posting repeat information >>


----------

