The 't' in 'nt' is often hardly pronounced in American English, even in formal contexts. I have been wondering for a while now if there is still a distinction maintained between 'n' and 'nt', ie. if one should insert a sound similar to the 'tt' in better after the 'n'. I'm currently trying to pronounce eg. 'inner' as [In@`] and 'internet' as [In4@`n3?], but I'm not sure if the difference would even be noticed. In some words, eg. 'horizontal', I can't produce a flap after the 'n', is it ok if I pronounce it as [hQr\IzAn5=] or will that sound strange or uneducated?
'inner' vs. 'inter-' (American English)
I myself tend to distinguish between intervocalic /n/ and /nt/ to a much greater extent than most AmE speakers probably would. I uniformly pronounce "twenty" as [twEni], but I usually pronounce "Internet" as [Int@`nEt], and I think I would only ever pronounce "horizontal" as [hQr\IzQntl=]. Nonetheless, T-reduction in these instances is extremely common in American English.
As for the flapping phenomenon you're talking about, it's not so much a case of [n4] as of [4~], simply a nasalized flap. You could also just use a simple [n] in this context. So you would be completely fine saying [I4~@`nEt] or just [In@`nEt].
As for the flapping phenomenon you're talking about, it's not so much a case of [n4] as of [4~], simply a nasalized flap. You could also just use a simple [n] in this context. So you would be completely fine saying [I4~@`nEt] or just [In@`nEt].
Thanks. You're right, a nasalized flap is a better description of that sound. I think that's what I'm going for in words like 'internet' an 'winter', and I guess I'll start to pronounce the t in 'horizontal' or 'fundamental'.
One more question: Is it a problem if the 'nn' in 'inner' also comes out as a nasalized flap in fast speech?
One more question: Is it a problem if the 'nn' in 'inner' also comes out as a nasalized flap in fast speech?
One thing to note is that /nt/ is reduced to [n] or [4~] (the difference can be subtle and some speakers have one, some the other, or use them interchangeably) only in stressed syllables. Thus, some examples from my speech:
"internment" [In"t_h3`nmInt], never *[In"3`nmInt]
"quintuplets" [kwIn"tVplIts], never *[kwIn"VplIts]
but:
"internet" ["In@`nEt]
"winter" ["wIn@`]
<<Is it a problem if the 'nn' in 'inner' also comes out as a nasalized flap in fast speech?>>
Few people would probably notice, tho you might want to save yourself some effort and just use a normal [n] there :)
"internment" [In"t_h3`nmInt], never *[In"3`nmInt]
"quintuplets" [kwIn"tVplIts], never *[kwIn"VplIts]
but:
"internet" ["In@`nEt]
"winter" ["wIn@`]
<<Is it a problem if the 'nn' in 'inner' also comes out as a nasalized flap in fast speech?>>
Few people would probably notice, tho you might want to save yourself some effort and just use a normal [n] there :)
Kirk: I don't think my /nt/ simplification is as widespread as yours. For instance, I don't think I would ever pronounce "winter" as [wIn@`]. I usually simplify the /nt/ in "twenty" and "plenty (of)", but these seem to be isolated cases. "Twenty", specifically, seems to have undergone a true phonemic shift from /twEnti/ to /twEni/ for me - I can't think of any situation where I'd realize it with [nt].
One interesting thing is that I seem to have much more progressive assimilation of final /nt/ clusters than of word-medial ones. For instance, I would usually say "They went over there" as [DeI wEn oUv@` DE@`].
One interesting thing is that I seem to have much more progressive assimilation of final /nt/ clusters than of word-medial ones. For instance, I would usually say "They went over there" as [DeI wEn oUv@` DE@`].
I'm noticing other little patterns in how I treat /nt/ clusters. For instance, I often pronounce "wanted" as [wQnId], but I would never reduce the cluster in a word like "vented" [vEntId].
<<One interesting thing is that I seem to have much more progressive assimilation of final /nt/ clusters than of word-medial ones. For instance, I would usually say "They went over there" as [DeI wEn oUv@` DE@`].>>
Yeah that rule applies to me, too. "They went over there" is [De wIn o_cv@` DEr\] for me. Compare the following:
"She's my aunt" [Si:z maI {~?]
"My aunt ate it" [maI {n e4 It_}]
Yeah that rule applies to me, too. "They went over there" is [De wIn o_cv@` DEr\] for me. Compare the following:
"She's my aunt" [Si:z maI {~?]
"My aunt ate it" [maI {n e4 It_}]
<<[wQnId], but I would never reduce the cluster in a word like "vented" [vEntId].>>
Oh, so you don't use the Australian style i-schwaing here then? That's interesting, because Australians do, and on the other thread http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t608-15.htm you told me that you had i-schwaing in your accent. I guess your i-schwaing must be less extensive than the i-schwaing found in Australian English.
Oh, so you don't use the Australian style i-schwaing here then? That's interesting, because Australians do, and on the other thread http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t608-15.htm you told me that you had i-schwaing in your accent. I guess your i-schwaing must be less extensive than the i-schwaing found in Australian English.
<<That's interesting, because Australians do, and on the other thread http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t608-15.htm you told me that you had i-schwaing in your accent. I guess your i-schwaing must be less extensive than the i-schwaing found in Australian English.>>
Yeah, I can be sort of variable with respect to that. I might as well have transcribed my "wanted" as [wQn@d].
<<"My aunt ate it" [maI {n e4 It_}]>>
Hmm...I think I would only ever say [maI Ant eI4 It_}], with the full [nt]. But in rapid speech, I might simplify the [nt] in a phrase like "point it out to them".
My final [nt] simplification seems a bit more extensive than my medial simplification, but I think it's still less extensive than yours.
Yeah, I can be sort of variable with respect to that. I might as well have transcribed my "wanted" as [wQn@d].
<<"My aunt ate it" [maI {n e4 It_}]>>
Hmm...I think I would only ever say [maI Ant eI4 It_}], with the full [nt]. But in rapid speech, I might simplify the [nt] in a phrase like "point it out to them".
My final [nt] simplification seems a bit more extensive than my medial simplification, but I think it's still less extensive than yours.
<<My final [nt] simplification seems a bit more extensive than my medial simplification, but I think it's still less extensive than yours.>>
Yeah, it seems so. Interesting. I didn't know there was that wide a degree of variability in NAE in terms of /nt/. You definitely appear to reduce /nt/ to [n] or [4~] less than I do.
Yeah, it seems so. Interesting. I didn't know there was that wide a degree of variability in NAE in terms of /nt/. You definitely appear to reduce /nt/ to [n] or [4~] less than I do.
I normally usually realize intervocalic /nt/ and /nd/ as [4~], including across word boundaries, except if, within words, the following vowel is stressed, and across word boundaries, if the /t/ or /d/ belongs to the following word. There are a few exceptions, such as the word "into" (/"Intu/ -> ["I~:n.tu]), where this does not happen, though, in my dialect, and some places where this may or may not happen, such as the word "vented" (while realizing /nt/ as [4~] is mandatory for "wanted" here).
<<My final [nt] simplification seems a bit more extensive than my medial simplification, but I think it's still less extensive than yours.>>
Yeah, it seems so. Interesting. I didn't know there was that wide a degree of variability in NAE in terms of /nt/. You definitely appear to reduce /nt/ to [n] or [4~] less than I do.
Yeah, it seems so. Interesting. I didn't know there was that wide a degree of variability in NAE in terms of /nt/. You definitely appear to reduce /nt/ to [n] or [4~] less than I do.
Same thing happened in the transition from Latin to Italian. Octo became otto, -us to o, -um to a...
Umm...the last post by "Lazar" obviously wasn't written by me. It's just somebody repeating one of Kirk's posts under my username, for some reason.
Umm...the last post by "Kirk" obviously wasn't written by me. It's just somebody repeating one of Lazar's posts under my username, for some reason.