Talk:Phonological history of English t

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Phonological history of English t was copied or moved into Flapping. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Phonological history of English t was copied or moved into T-glottalization. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This should really redirect to the disambiguation page for Flap. -- Hobart 14:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the old content there. And I've moved the content formerly at Intervocalic t/d merger here, because the phenomenon described there is universally known to linguists as "flapping". That page now redirects here. --Angr 20:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re: assimilation

Hi.

I am thinking of flapping as a type of assimilation in that the [-continuant] feature of /t/ & /d/ is assimilating to the [+cont] feature of the surrounding vowels. So, something like the "openness" of the vowels is influencing the duration of the closure and the strength of the tongue articulatory movement. Perhaps not assimilation in a canonical sense, but still seems rather so to me. Thoughts? — ishwar (SPEAK) 18:49, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

The problem is that [ɾ] is probably still [-cont] (that's the most likely distinction between it and [ɹ], which is [+cont]). If flapping is caused by spreading a feature, the only possible feature would be [+sonorant], but since that's a major class feature, most theories of feature geometry won't allow it to spread except in total assimilation. I think it's preferable to treat flapping as a kind of lenition in a weak metrical position. --Angr 19:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. That's interesting. Thanks for the note. Cheers! — ishwar (SPEAK) 23:44, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

References

I've removed this.

Vaux, Bert. 2000. Flapping in English. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Chicago. (Manuscript available on request from bertvaux(at)gmail.com)

I don't believe that unpublished material can count as a reference on Wikipedia. Nor do I think it appropriate to have personal e-mail addresses in articles. Please put these back if I'm wrong. Jimp 05:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with its removal. In general, though, I think unpublished material is okay if it's at least immediately available (e.g. a PDF document that can be downloaded from one's website) and is from a reliable source (e.g. an academic who already has published substantially in the field in question, and probably will have this paper published soon, but just hasn't yet). Angr (talk • contribs) 06:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For other uses, see flap

I don't understand this. What is this supposed to mean? For other uses of what? Voortle 03:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It dates back from a time when this page (or a part of it) was called Flapping. People looking for a different meaning of "flap" or "flapping" might wind up here by mistake, so the point was to redirect them to a page where other uses of the word "flap" are discussed. Angr (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed flapping to redirect to flap and removed the note from this page. Voortle 20:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted, because if you look at "What links here" for "Flapping" you'll see every link is about the process described on this page. We can improve the hatnote instead. Angr (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other Ts?

I think that, as part of this article, there should be at least a passing mention of how generic t phonologically differs from English t. In other words, the universal definition of t, upon which t glottal stop and flap/tap are modifications, is what? And, for that matter, what are common phonological modifications of t which are NOT present in English? Naturally the latter should be especially brief, since it's not under the direct purview of the article, but it still has enough direct relevence to be worth passing mention. --Kaz 17:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is such a thing as "generic t" or a "universal definition of t" other than voiceless alveolar plosive. User:Angr 19:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glottalisation

I think whoever wrote the section on glottalisation of /t/s has gotten glottalisation mixed up with loss of audible release. eg i'm not american but i think the /t/ is generally pronounced as [t̚] ([t] with no audible release) before syllabic /n/s. eg [ɹɪt̚n̩], not [ɹɪʔn̩]. my point is furthered by the fact that this article makes no mention of the unreleased /t/.

I agree with you to some extent, in that when in my Utahn American accent, saying "written" my tongue hits the alveolar ridge immediately after the vowel and well before I pronounce the nasal. However, I can clearly feel and hear glottal involvement while my tongue is held there for the pronunciation of [n]. An example of unreleased /t/ to me would be more often one at the end of a word---something like the /t/ in "Hey Pat."

I agree with both of you. As far as I know, glottalization of /t/ before /n/ is specific to Connecticut. I'll look for references to support that. Confiteordeo 17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native of Alberta, Canada and I use glottal stops for /t/ before vocalic /n/. The article on glottal stops was less helpful than this one about usage outside of Britain. Not a creation of JK Rowling 23:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]