It has been a doubt to me as I some times hear the Americans ignore the /t/ in the words like exactly or others with/ktlɪ/.
Tell me if I am wrong
Thxx
Tell me if I am wrong
Thxx
exactly->ɪgzæktlɪ -> Is /t/ omitted?
I think that they ignore the t in words like pentagon. They say penagan or something like that.
I would say that the /t/ is lost in most North American English dialects in "exactly" or other cases of historical /ktlI/ (> /ktli/ or /ktleI/) outside of very careful speech.
As for "pentagon", it is extremely common for no audible [t] to be realized in cases of intervocalic /nt/ before unstressed vowels in North American English. However, this does not mean that underlying /t/ has actually been lost due to two different things: the cluster /nt/ may be realized as the nasal alveolar flap [4~] rather than as the [n] one would expect from /n/ in the same position in some dialects, and the /t/ may also influence vowel length allophony despite its elision (resulting in the preceding historical /E/ to be short rather than long). For instance, I myself would pronounce "pentagon" as ["p_h3_+~4~@:ga~:n] or ["p_h3_+~:@~_^ga~:n] whereas I would actually pronounce "pennagon" (historical /"pEn@gQn/) as ["p3_+~:n@:ga~:n] or ["p3_+~::@~_^ga~:n] (note this is also taking intervocalic /n/ elision in my dialect into account).
As for "pentagon", it is extremely common for no audible [t] to be realized in cases of intervocalic /nt/ before unstressed vowels in North American English. However, this does not mean that underlying /t/ has actually been lost due to two different things: the cluster /nt/ may be realized as the nasal alveolar flap [4~] rather than as the [n] one would expect from /n/ in the same position in some dialects, and the /t/ may also influence vowel length allophony despite its elision (resulting in the preceding historical /E/ to be short rather than long). For instance, I myself would pronounce "pentagon" as ["p_h3_+~4~@:ga~:n] or ["p_h3_+~:@~_^ga~:n] whereas I would actually pronounce "pennagon" (historical /"pEn@gQn/) as ["p3_+~:n@:ga~:n] or ["p3_+~::@~_^ga~:n] (note this is also taking intervocalic /n/ elision in my dialect into account).
In the case of "exactly", yes, in the case of "pentagon", no in at least many dialects.
>>["p_h3_+~4~@:ga~:n] rather than ["p_hE_+~4~@:ga~:n]?<<
Yes - historical /E/ is backed in towards [3] in the dialect here due to the Northern Cities Vowel Shift.
Yes - historical /E/ is backed in towards [3] in the dialect here due to the Northern Cities Vowel Shift.