pronunciation: the sound of T/D before semivowels [It was / could yet]

cadarika

Member
Portuguese
examples:
"It was two years ago"
"Could yet perform it"

My guess would be a glottal stop, at least in AmE, but I'm not all that sure. thanks in advance!
 
  • natkretep

    Moderato con anima (English Only)
    English (Singapore/UK), basic Chinese
    I would imagine that a person who'd use a glottal stop for 'it' in other contexts as well would use it here. I'm not sure that a semivowel would trigger a different realisation of the /t/. I'd be quite happy to use an aspirated /t/. /d/ doesn't convert to a glottal stop for me.
     

    Delvo

    Senior Member
    American English
    Glottal stop for the "t" in your first line, not because of the sound after it, but because of the lack of anything after it in the same word. That happens to "t" at the end of a word any time there isn't a word after it starting with a vowel or a sibilant, and sometimes even when there is, plus in the middle of words like "water" ("wa'er") spoken by people in some part of England. It never happens to "d" at all in most English dialects, but does at the ends of words in the version of English spoken by some black Americans, which makes black Americans sound to other English-speakers like they're converting final "d" to "t".

    The "d" in your second line would be an unaltered plain "d" from most people I've known. Maybe about one in ten would turn it into the affricate that's normally spelled "j" in English (voiced counterpart of our "ch"). "D" and "t" practically never are followed by a "y" in the same word, and are not usually affected by anything in a separate word, but can be. When they are followed by a "y"-sound, most native English-speakers probably could hear it done both ways and not even notice a difference, so both pronunciations ("could yet" and "cou-jet") sound normal. When they're followed by the letter in suffixes like "-ian" (Arkadian, Croatian), "d" is pronounced as a plain ordinary "d" and "i" is treated as a vowel, whereas the combination "ti" in only those specific circumstances (including the "-tion" in things like "taxation") is pronounced like our digraph "sh". So is the "xi" in equivalent constructions such as "crucifixion".

    Both [t] and [d] are converted to the affricates "ch" and "j" when followed by "r", every single time; failure to do this conversion will be noticed and make the speaker sound either excessively formal & pretentious, or foreign.

    Being followed by "w" never affects "d" or "t". I heard "tw" come out as "chw" once as a child, and it was so rare and weird that I remember it years later, because it made me think the person who did it was trying to say some other word starting with "tr" but the "r" had come out wrong as a "w".
     

    cadarika

    Member
    Portuguese
    Both [t] and [d] are converted to the affricates "ch" and "j" when followed by "r", every single time; failure to do this conversion will be noticed and make the speaker sound either excessively formal & pretentious, or foreign.
    how common is the realization of [t] as an affricate after /r/? while I myself might hear/pronounce it that way, I had done some research about this specific topic some time ago and most people claimed not to merge /tr/ with /tʃr/
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top