# Silent 't' [word end]



## Art Kelly

I read in my Students Book that you sometimes don't hear the sound of the consonant 't' when a word ends with 't' and the follow word starts with a consonant. I listened to some English recordings I couldn't hear the 't' in the case I mentioned. I wonder if you say the 't' or not to say it.


----------



## cuchuflete

Please give specific examples.

Some people pronounce things more carefully than others.  For example, if you ask
a number of AE speakers to read the words "great apes", nearly all will pronounce the 't'.  However, if a word ends in a combination of consonants, results will be mixed.


----------



## ewie

Whereas if you ask a number of BE speakers to say _great apes_, the chances are high that a lot of them will produce _grey'apes_ ~ which is to say with a _glottal stop_ in the middle rather than a _t_.
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAGlottalStop.htm

(By contrast, if you asked them to say _grey apes_, they'd all produce _grey-y-apes_ with a definite _y_-sound in the middle.)


----------



## Art Kelly

For example

I can't stand when people don't put off their mobiles at English classes. I think you don't hear the consonant 't' in the word can't. The 't' is silent in this case.


----------



## ewie

No, that's a really good example, Art.  If I heard someone pronouncing that tricky /tst/ combination _in full_ in that sentence, I would be extremely surprised!


----------



## Loob

I agree: if a word ending in 't' is followed by a consonant, the 't' is very likely to be pronounced as a glottal stop.

In BrE at least


----------



## Art Kelly

Ewie, you never hear the consonant 't' when a word ends with 't' and the follow word starts with a consonant or there are exceptions to this grammar rule.


----------



## ewie

I wouldn't say you never hear it, Art ~ what I _would_ say is that in rapid informal (BE) speech it is often dropped altogether (and replaced by a glottal stop or nothing) or pronounced so slightly as to be almost inaudible.

(There are no doubt BE-speakers who will tell you _"I always pronounce all my T's"_. Take it from me: they're _lying_)


----------



## Art Kelly

Thanks a lot Ewie.


----------



## cuchuflete

Another AE example:

Don't ask.

Many AE speakers will drop the 't', while others, myself included, will pronounce it when speaking slowly, but will drop it in rapid speech.


----------



## Nikola

Art Kelly said:


> Ewie, you never hear the consonant 't' when a word ends with 't' and the follow word starts with a consonant or there are exceptions to this grammar rule.


I would not say that it is a grammar rule. It is a way of speaking informally.
The glottal stop is more common in BE than AE. The dropping of "t" occurs in some words by some speakers not only at the end of a word, such as "ineresting "for interesting. These pronunciations are not the way English is taught in school nor are they universal.


----------



## timpeac

Art Kelly said:


> For example
> 
> I can't stand when people don't put off their mobiles at English classes. I think you don't hear the consonant 't' in the word can't. The 't' is silent in this case.


It seems strange to me too that the "t" could disappear in such a sentence since it would make "I can stand" and "I can't stand" sound identical which could be very confusing! Where I come from the vowel of "can" and the vowel of "can't" are difference (short front vowel in the first instance and a long back vowel in the second) and so they can't be confused whether or not you hear the "t". If the "t" here is silent - how do those native speakers who don't change the vowel in this way differentiate the two? I believe that some (all?) American speakers pronounce the vowel in the same way.


----------



## wildan1

Loob said:


> I agree: if a word ending in 't' is followed by a consonant, the 't' is very likely to be pronounced as a glottal stop.
> 
> In BrE at least


 
Yes, that is mostly BE. The only part of the US where you hear this kind of glottal stop instead of intervocalic T is around New York City and New Jersey.


----------



## timpeac

wildan1 said:


> Yes, that is mostly BE. The only part of the US where you hear this kind of glottal stop instead of intervocalic T is around New York City and New Jersey.


But you guys usually insert a "d" instead don't you (bedder for better, ledder for letter etc)? At least that's how it sounds to me.


----------



## wildan1

timpeac said:


> But you guys usually insert a "d" instead don't you (bedder for better, ledder for letter etc)? At least that's how it sounds to me.


 
yes, the T is typically vocalized in those cases unless you are being very precise, but it is still pronounced as a T with the tongue against the palate, and not a missing sound or shifted to the back of the throat.


----------



## timpeac

wildan1 said:


> yes, the T is typically vocalized in those cases unless you are being very precise, but it is still pronounced as a T with the tongue against the palate, and not a missing sound or shifted to the back of the throat.


Actually, I have some things to say on this but have realised we're getting off topic - Loob said



> I agree: if a word ending in 't' is followed by a consonant, the 't' is very likely to be pronounced as a glottal stop.
> 
> In BrE at least


and you replied


> Yes, that is mostly BE. The only part of the US where you hear this kind of glottal stop instead of intervocalic T is around New York City and New Jersey.


 (which I in turn replied to).

In fact Loob is talking about final /t/ plus consonant not intervocalic /t/. I agree with this for BE - /do'com/ for "dot com" for example. Here the glottal stop is no more or less a sound than [t] or [d] etc, it just doesn't have a phonemic value of its own - it's not a "missing" sound.


----------



## kruthskins

I think AE speakers diminish the t sound as well. In the word "can't," for example, the t sound is almost always cut off in AE. Most Americans would probably say they pronounce it though because they _are_ pronouncing it, just so softly that the sound is almost inaudible. I am from the southwestern part of the US and I diminish the sound quite often. I only barely became aware of it though when a native Spanish speaker pointed it out.

As for confusion between the words "can" and "can't," the tone of the speakers voice is generally what would differentiate the two. It is unlikely someone would say the sentences "I can't go to the party" and "I can go to the party" with the same tone.


----------



## wildan1

timpeac said:


> we're getting off topic
> In fact Loob is talking about final /t/ plus consonant not intervocalic /t/. I agree with this for BE - /do'com/ for "dot com" for example. Here the glottal stop is no more or less a sound than [t] or [d] etc, it just doesn't have a phonemic value of its own.


 
Sorry, I was replying to chuchuflete, ewie and kelly's comments, and missed that the focus of Loob's comment had shifted (sorry, Loob). So my comment--for what it's worth--stands in reply to those earlier posts. 

I'll read more carefully next time!


----------



## timpeac

kruthskins said:


> As for confusion between the words "can" and "can't," the tone of the speakers voice is generally what would differentiate the two. It is unlikely someone would say the sentences "I can't go to the party" and "I can go to the party" with the same tone.


But if they do, what happens - do they sound the same? I find it hard to believe they would (but don't know so I'm not saying they don't) - are you sure the vowel doesn't change its value in some way as happens in British English (well not exactly as they change in British English but in some audibly different way)?


----------



## wildan1

> As for confusion between the words "can" and "can't," the tone of the speakers voice is generally what would differentiate the two.


 
But doesn't the *a* sound change from schwa in can to ae in can't? That's the clearest marker of difference in AE, although we do generally pronounce the final T of can't...


----------



## kruthskins

timpeac said:


> But if they do, what happens - do they sound the same? I find it hard to believe they would (but don't know so I'm not saying they don't) - are you sure the vowel doesn't change its value in some way as happens in British English (well not exactly as they change in British English but in some audibly different way)?


 
I believe the vowel sound would be practically the same except the "a" sound in "can't" might be held out for longer, making the difference clearer. I think typically there would also be a little lilt in the voice when saying can't. My friend that pointed it out (who speaks Spanish as her first langauge) says it is hard for her to tell the difference but an AE speaker would almost always be able to tell the differnce, no matter how subtle.


----------



## wildan1

But in AE when spoken in fluid speech:

_I can go_ -- can has the same vowel as the e of th*e*
_I can't go_ -- can has the same vowel as the a of p*a*n


----------



## timpeac

kruthskins said:


> I believe the vowel sound would be practically the same except the "a" sound in "can't" might be held out for longer, making the difference clearer. I think typically there would also be a little lilt in the voice when saying can't.


 Thanks - I thought I'd noticed exactly those two items but didn't want to influence things by sayings so. The  main reason being that I was surprised that was enough to separate such importantly different phrases, although the fact that's the case is also supported by your friend's experience.


----------



## kruthskins

wildan1 said:


> But in AE when spoken in fluid speech:
> 
> _I can go_ -- can has the same vowel as the e of th*e*
> _I can't go_ -- can has the same vowel as the a of p*a*n


 
Maybe the difference is regional. I say both with the same vowel sound as the a in pan. I live in Texas althought I don't have a southern accent by any means. I say "can't" like "can-t."


----------



## timpeac

wildan1 said:


> But in AE when spoken in fluid speech:
> 
> _I can go_ -- can has the same vowel as the e of th*e*
> _I can't go_ -- can has the same vowel as the a of p*a*n


Thanks wildan but "the" has different pronunciations depending on its position in the phrase and the nationality of the speaker so I'm not sure what I can take away from that.


----------



## wildan1

timpeac said:


> Thanks wildan but "the" has different pronunciations depending on its position in the phrase and the nationality of the speaker so I'm not sure what I can take away from that.


 
In fluid speech I think the _e_ of _the _is pretty universally schwa:

_I c*a*n go rhymes _with
_In th*e* know_


----------



## kruthskins

wildan1 said:


> In fluid speech I think the _e_ of _the _is pretty universally schwa:
> 
> _I c*a*n go rhymes _with
> _In th*e* know_


 
Do you say it like the a in about? That seems off to me.


----------



## timpeac

wildan1 said:


> In fluid speech I think the _e_ of _the _is pretty universally schwa:
> 
> _I c*a*n go rhymes _with
> _In th*e* know_


In fluid unstressed speech I'd agree, but so often by the very nature of the meaning of the verb it does take stress and that's where I find it hard to understand how AE differentiates "can" and "can't" if/when the "t" gets dropped.


----------



## wildan1

timpeac said:


> In fluid unstressed speech I'd agree, but so often by the very nature of the meaning of the verb it does take stress and that's where I find it hard to understand how AE differentiates "can" and "can't" if/when the "t" gets dropped.


 
The biggest difference is indeed in the vowel. But a non-native speaker who learns the language through its spelling may be looking for a T to make the difference and not paying attention to the vowel--especially a speaker of a language like Spanish, which doesn't have schwa as a vowel.


----------



## timpeac

wildan1 said:


> The biggest difference is indeed in the vowel. But a non-native speaker who learns the language through its spelling may be looking for a T to make the difference and not paying attention to the vowel--especially a speaker of a language like Spanish, which doesn't have schwa as a vowel.


I don't understand why "but" in your post. I agree with both the first part and the second of your post and so am not sure what that's a rebuttal to or how it relates to the quote.


----------



## Caloba

Nikola said:


> I would not say that it is a grammar rule. It is a way of speaking informally.
> The glottal stop is more common in BE than AE. The dropping of "t" occurs in some words by some speakers not only at the end of a word, such as "ineresting "for interesting. These pronunciations are not the way English is taught in school nor are they universal.



 That's been like a pet peeve of mine.  I don't know why, it just bothers me when I hear someone say "I was surfing the innernet"  I'm like "what the heck is 'innernet', is that related to the outernet?"  Same deal with 'Sanna' Claus or when someone says "it's cold outside, you better put on your 'winner' coat".  The other day on the radio I heard someone pronounce intercontinental in such a butchered way that I nearly fell out of my chair.  It sounded more like "innercon-innennal'. with a glottal stop in the middle.  To him, the T's in the word intercontinental were just there for decorations, evidently


----------



## Outsider

Here's a previous thread that may be of interest.


----------



## Skin

Hello everybody!

I'd like to add that the pronunciation of t is most revealing *in BE.* It also carries social connotations, so to speak: it can give you some indication whether you have a speaker of RP, Estuary English or Cockney, depending on how many ts they tap and which position in the word the t occupies.

In older forms of RP, the ts were tapped in almost all positions in a word.

Recently there have been changes in RP and it is true that people can sound over-precise or a little prissy if they pronounce all the ts. So it is now considered respectable to say _Ga'wick, kni'wear, apar'ment_ for Gatwick, knitwear apartment. That is to say that a glottal stop can replace the t, when the t is in a mid-word position before a consonant.

BE speakers might also drop their ts in the end-of-word position, when talking among friends or family: how about _tha'_? This is certainly frowned upon by some speakers, but could be acceptable in informal situations.

What is still stigmatised by most BE speakers is a glottal stop between vowels: _wa'er_ (water), _bu'er_ (butter) and so on. This is a feature of Cockney and other BE accents, including Geordie an Glaswegian, but hasn't yet made its way into RP.

Bye


----------



## Kevin Beach

There has also been this recent thread, relating to the American "T", but developing into a more general discussion:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1119247


----------



## the MASTER

I constantly tell my students of English that they _must_ pronounce the vowel sounds in "can" [kæn] and "can't" [kɑ:n(t)] differently because that is very often the only way of distinguishing the two!


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

timpeac said:


> In fluid unstressed speech I'd agree, but so often by the very nature of the meaning of the verb it does take stress and that's where I find it hard to understand how AE differentiates "can" and "can't" if/when the "t" gets dropped.


But no speech is completely unstressed! I would have thought that most of the time, if you say 'I can be there in five minutes', you would stress the 'be' and 'unstress' the 'can', but if you say 'I can't be there in five minutes', you would stress the 'can't' and 'unstress' the 'be'. That way, it would still be pretty clear what you mean.

/Wilma


----------



## KHS

I just want to mention that there is a difference between a T that is pronounced as a glottal stop (as in AmE 'written') and one that is an unreleased consonant (as in the second 't' in AmE 'start fresh')

With a glottal stop, the sound is stopped in the glottis (throat). With an unreleased consonant, the tongue goes to the position of the letter (thus stopping the preceding sound, often a vowel or a nasal), but the sound of the letter itself is never "released." 

Thus the difference between 'can' and 'can't' in the following examples lies in the fact that the 't' in 'can't' stops the vowel:
Yes, I can. (in which the sound of vowel and nasal continue and end gradually) 
No, I can't. (in which the sound of the vowel is abruptly stopped)


----------



## Nymeria

I think that any discussion on word pronunciation runs the risk of overgeneralisation. It seems like English language teachers are fond of telling their students that something must or must not be pronounced a particular way because that is the pronunciation in "English". I think that this vastly underrates the impact of national accents.

I actually find this generalisation quite annoying to hear because, despite standardised pronunciation guides etc, the accent one has will have an enormous impact on the way a word is pronounced and what vowel sounds one is able to clearly hear and distinguish and, by extension, will produce.

I NEVER say a 'written' that sounds "wridden" or "wri'en". It always has two clear and distinct tees right in the middle of the word.

My "can" sounds like "caahn" and my "can't" sounds like "caahnt".  No one would ever liken my "a" sound in "c*a*n go" to my "e" sound in "in th*e* know."


----------



## natkretep

Surely the lack of a distinction in the vowel of _can_ and _can't_ is not only a potentially American thing. Wouldn't it be the case that some Northern English and Scottish speakers also have the same vowel? I remember getting a little confused in deciding whether a Scottish speaker intended 'You can go to the roof' or 'You can't go to the roof'.


----------



## Forero

Where I come from, we pronounce _can't _with the same flat _a_ sound as in emphasized _can_ (like the noun), but both the _a_ and the _n_ sounds are shortened by the _t_.  The _t_ itself is often merely a complete stoppage of the vibration of the voice and the flow of air.

Before _s_, as in "can't stand", this stoppage takes the form of a _t_ sound; before a _g_, as in "can't go", it becomes an unreleased _k_; and before _p_, as in "can't put", it tends to become a glottal stop, though it may also be an unreleased _t_ or even _p_.  I don't think it is ever simply omitted before a consonant.

Speakers of nearby dialects still say "cain't", with a long _a_ sound as in _cane_, but their _can_ never sounds like _cane_.


----------



## Caloba

So let's review, after reading a few of these threads, I have come to the conclusion there are 5 ways to go about pronouncing a T:

1) hard T: sponTaneous, specTacular
2) soft t (Alveolar tap): (mostly american, sounds more like a d) beTTer sounding like bedder and also making words like meTal and MeDal indistinguishable (in general american english)
3) glottisized T:  British peanut bu'er (butter), or american new'on or bu'on (newton, button)
4) barely-pronounced T:  fooTball, meaTball (I think it's called an 'unreleased stop'?)
5) completely silent T  (lazy man's T): innernet (internet), sanna claus (Santa Claus)

and then there are words where with so many t's u can play around and pronounce them all differently for your own amusement  such as: intercontinental


----------



## Outsider

And it can be aspirated or not... but that's another story. 



the MASTER said:


> I constantly tell my students of English that they _must_ pronounce the vowel sounds in "can" [kæn] and "can't" [kɑ:n(t)] differently because that is very often the only way of distinguishing the two!


Another thread: Phonetics of can vs. can't.


----------



## winklepicker

Caloba said:


> 5) completely silent T  (lazy man's T): innernet (internet), sanna claus (Santa Claus)



Not always lazy - sometimes register. cf the Marx brothers' contract sketch about the sanity clause:

 "No, you can'ta fool me. There ain'ta no Sanna de Claus."


----------



## Caloba

Outsider said:


> And it can be aspirated or not... but that's another story.



 Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is an aspirated T and how is it any different from any of the 5 methods of pronouncing a T that I outlined???


----------



## wildan1

Caloba said:


> That's been like a pet peeve of mine. I don't know why, it just bothers me when I hear someone say "I was surfing the innernet" I'm like "what the heck is 'innernet', is that related to the outernet?" Same deal with 'Sanna' Claus or when someone says "it's cold outside, you better put on your 'winner' coat". The other day on the radio I heard someone pronounce intercontinental in such a butchered way that I nearly fell out of my chair. It sounded more like "innercon-innennal'. with a glottal stop in the middle. To him, the T's in the word intercontinental were just there for decorations, evidently


 
Well, if you live in/around NYC you are especially going to hear that a lot in the Tri-state dialect--_innernet, he hadda go early_, and lots of intervocalic glottal stops. 

But I think that's a pretty localized way of speaking, limited to your immediate region of the US, Caloba.


----------



## KHS

Caloba said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is an aspirated T and how is it any different from any of the 5 methods of pronouncing a T that I outlined???


 
In the word [top] there is a little puff of air after the [t] (aspirated)
In the word [stop] there is no puff of air after the [t] (unaspirated)

Put a thin sheet of paper in front of your mouth when you pronounce the two words if you want to see a physical manifestation of the difference.


----------



## Redshade

In the West Riding version of Yorkshire the highlighted in red "t" sounds in the phrases:

"Nice bit o' butter", and  "trouble at t'mill" * would not only not be sounded but they would not be sounded with totally different sounds.


*Non- northern speakers when trying to mimic the northern pronunciation in a jocular manner nearly always use this cliched phrase with two "ts" prominent in either written or verbal parody which is completely and utterly incorrect.


----------



## Adge

wildan1 said:


> Well, if you live in/around NYC you are especially going to hear that a lot in the Tri-state dialect--_innernet, he hadda go early_, and lots of intervocalic glottal stops.
> 
> But I think that's a pretty localized way of speaking, limited to your immediate region of the US, Caloba.


 
Really? When I read the original post I immediately thought, "hey, that's me!" I say "innernet" and "winner" (for winter) and I've never even been to NYC. I always thought it was a Southern thing. And I definitely say "innerconinennal." 

More on the topic, in my accent the difference between can and can't is the vowel- _can_ has a high vowel and sounds like _kin_, whereas _can't_ sounds like, well, _can_. When I try "I can go" versus "I can't go" in my best standard American, English teacher voice, the difference becomes (I think) a glottal stop at the end of _can't_ rather than a t (I don't quite know if it's a glottal stop, but I know my tongue doesn't raise like for a "t").


----------



## Cypherpunk

Adge said:


> More on the topic, in my accent the difference between can and can't is the vowel- _can_ has a high vowel and sounds like _kin_, whereas _can't_ sounds like, well, _can_. When I try "I can go" versus "I can't go" in my best standard American, English teacher voice, the difference becomes (I think) a glottal stop at the end of _can't_ rather than a t (I don't quite know if it's a glottal stop, but I know my tongue doesn't raise like for a "t").


This is the difference in vowel sound when I say this, and this is what I hear most often throughout the South (except when 'cain't' is used, of course). And everyone is so focused on the _a_ and _t_ sounds, but I actually _sustain_ the glottal (?) _n_ sound in 'can't', while there is no hesitation with 'can'. 
I've never had a Spanish speaker tell me they couldn't tell the difference!


----------

