Would you pronounce the D in these sentences?
Ed killed two more... Sentenced to death... She was so attached to her... I talked to him...
What is a palate? Also, what do you mean "the tongue does something different"
Palate = the top of the inside of the mouth.
He is referring to different areas of the mouth, if you look up an English IPA face chart it will make more sense.
The final -ed sound, when it’s pronounced [t] or [d] is normally dropped (elided) in connected speech before another alveolar or dental stop or affricate - /t͡ʃ/ as in chip, /d͡ʒ/ as in jam, /t/ as in to, /d/ as in do, /θ/ as in thin and /ð/ as in the.
Some speakers may have an unreleased [t] or [d], which is basically inaudible and indistinguishable in speech from dropping the sound entirely.
A related situation involves the final [t] or [d] moving to the initial position of a following word- moved alone is /muvd/, but in we moved a chair, it is often [muv.də].
This often “restores” some of the voicing of an assimilated [t] ending. baked alone is /bejkt/, but in we baked a cake, it’s often [bejk.də].
Edit: killed alone is /kɪld/, but we killed two more would often be indistinguishable from we kill two more without context (or careful, slow speech).
These endings in general are very weak and context is very important for identifying present or past in English. Time markers are useful and irregular verbs can also help to clarify if you’re trying to get used to listening to spoken English.
I read “I killed two” with an unreleased [t̚] but also with a very shorter [ɪ], making it sound clearly different from “I kill two” via vowel length. Do you think that’s a plausible distinction?
To be honest, native speakers are the worst people to ask about these things because they have a morphophonemic understanding of sounds that does not accurately represent the phonetic realization. With connected speech in particular, as soon as you focus on it, the sandhi effects can vanish.
What I can say is that I’ve tested native and non-native speakers with isolated phrases lacking context and they are unable to distinguish between pairs like kill two and killed two (specifically, move to and moved to as well as hike the and hiked the). Whatever articulatory difference is there is not enough.
Add the context back in and people swear they can hear the difference.
When speaking at a normal conversational pace, the difference is very very slight. You do still pronounce the “ed” with your tongue, but it’s so fast and slight that I’d argue you can’t really hear the difference.
So yes, a native speaker does pronounce the ed, but it’s so quick and subtle you can’t really hear the difference unless you’re speaking slowly and with emphasis.
I'd agree with this, certainly the case in most British dialects which is where I'm from.
Talked to him is almost pronounced like talk't to him so that 'to' is more or less simply given a longer moment on the t.
It's there, but it kinda just blends in with the subsequent t.
It's not "almost" pronounced with a "t" at the end, it *is* pronounced with a "t" at the end.
The ed is there but softened and blended with the T. If there was no ed “I talk to him” there is a much sharper edge to the K and the T, it’s more staccato and so is easily distinguished.
It's interesting to me. There is a difference when I say it, but it is not that there is an extra "ed" sound. When I say "I talk to him" the K is pronounced .ore than the L. When I say "I talked to him" the L is pronounced, but the "ked" turns into a stop. Weird...
What dialect do you speak in which the L in "talked" is pronounced as a separate sound?
Hmm... not a separate sound, just more pronounced than the other phrase. I'm in east Texas, though, and we tend to sound funny, even to other southerners.
People are right that the difference is slight, but it's honestly not that hard to hear the difference for a native speaker, in most contexts. In particular, /d/ is voiced, and even if the /d/ itself isn't prominent, you can usually hear the voicing.
If the conversation is in a somewhat noisy room, or they're speaking very fast? Then yes, there's almost no audible difference and the speaker would have to over-enunciate to be understood (but only if the listener was even confused in the first place).
I'd say I do. It's called an "unreleased stop". That is, I say the <(e)d>, but immediately turn it into a <t>, when I Iet my tongue move to make the next sound. Of course, if it's after a voiceless sound (p, t, k, c, ss, sh, ce, others), then the <(e)d> already sounds like a <t> anyway.
No not really. "I talk to him" and "I talked to him" sound pretty much identical.
What dialect? Cause not where I live
I'm in southern Ontario, Canada.
In the south where I’m at it’s identical, the difference is so minor to the point of being practically unrecognizable unless you’re the one taking
It’s true in my American accent. If you’re American try saying “I talked to him” as quickly as you would say it in an average conversation. It’s very very difficult to distinguish from “I talk to him”
The US is a big place. In Michigan, both of those are pronounced distinctly.
It depends more on on how fast you’re talking than where you’re from. I think you’d have to have a very thick regional accent or be speaking with emphasis for the audible difference to not be very, very slight.
I’m not sure what to tell you but people around here definitely pronounce those two things differently and it would sound noticeably weird to drop the -ed if referring to the past tense.
What does your "ED" sound like in "talked?"
Like a tuh sound at the end. My tongue does something a bit different for talk vs talked.
The overwhelming majority of native speakers of English put no "uh" at the end of "talked." The "ED" is realized as a "t." The word "talked" ends in a cluster of a "k" followed by a "t."
Fascinating. People have always had trouble placing my accent, so perhaps that’s all part of it.
They shouldn't. How does anybody know what you're saying? There is a distinct difference in meaning between your two examples.
Many, many languages have words and phrases that sound identical, especially when spoken quickly, but have different meanings depending on context.
But... they do? How will they know? Context. "I talked to him yesterday". But let's say you want to say "I talked to him everyday". You might opt for "I used to talk to him everyday". This is why so many people, even some natives, confuse it with "I use to talk to him everyday". Because they sound identical.
edit: The only time they sound a tiny bit different is when the consonant before "ed" already places your tongue at the roof of your mouth. So, "kill two" and "killed two" sound the tiniest bit different but not a sound I could explain. Another example I can think of is "I melted two" vs "I melt two", but still "Yesterday, I melt two piece together" sounds totally natural to me.
May I introduce you to French?
Je parle
Tu parles
Il/elle parle
How is that relevant? The confusion is not about who talks but whether it is in the past or present. There is little chance of that confusion in French!
You would be incorrect in English. Talk is present tense, talked is past tense, in these examples.
They are talking about pronunciation
Still yes :) I would and do pronounce the "d" at the end, regardless of whether or not the next word starts with a "t".
What's the last sound in your pronunciation of the word, "talked?"
The hard "d" that sounds a lot like a "t", but that doesn't stop me from having a pause between words long enough to form the first "t" in the next word.
The "hard d" (whatever that means) is a "t" phonetically.
Okay, but I still pronounce them both, I don't run them together so as to skip a sound. That's just the way I learned to talk, not bashing anyone for not talking the same way.
What dialect are you, I’m awfully mimicking so many and can’t think of one that does rhat
Why do I feel like I've stumbled into a mine field? :)
Born and raised in Southern California, but raised in a community of mixed British accents and spent my childhood in an Irish pub.
CALIFORNIAN 🤢🤢🤢🤢🤢
LOL A very confused Californian. Actually, any time people try to guess where I'm from, they can't do it because my "accent" is all over the board (i'm a natural mimic, don't mean to do it).
We're talking about how it sounds. Not what it means.
Not enough coffee ;)
Thanks!
But when you say “I talked to him” in an American accent at a speed you would use in an average conversation, it sounds practically indistinguishable from “I talk to him”.
Sure, if someone asked you to repeat yourself you would go slower and emphasize the “ed” but saying it to myself right now it sounds a lot like “I talk to him”
The sound used is basically an alveolar flap. It’s technically between a t and a d. People tend to use it when they say a word like butter quickly.
I pretty much always do, sometimes in a way that might be too quick for a non-native to catch.
Ig it sounds like aid
I do. Most people run them together.
Yes, I would.
In killed two more, I definitely have a separate [d] sound, a brief period where my tongue is fully pressed against the ridge behind my upper incisors and my vocal folds are vibrating.
In sentenced, attached, and talked, the written <ed> is pronounced [t] anyway (because sentence, attach, and talk end in voiceless consonants); the two [t] sounds in …ed to… do tend to merge into a single [f] in fast speech. In very slow, careful speech I might pronounce a single [t] sound that is held extra long.
A lot of people will say they pronounce the "d" but they have probably never really thought about it.
It's called elision and it happens often when we have t and d together.
This web page has some examples with native speakers at the bottom of the page. https://www.englishpronunciationmadrid.com/elision-of-t-and-d/
A lot of people think they pronounce a "d" at the end of "attached" or "killed," and it sounds like you might be one of them...
No I don't think that mainly because I have a masters in linguistics with a focus on pronunciation features such as elision
Did you study assimilation or underspecification, at all? That's how we account for the three different pronunciations of the orthographic "ed"
So, tell me, what's the final sound in the word "attached," (in isolation/final) for you. As in, "This is something that should be attached"
I'm not sure why you are pumping me so hard here.
Obviously we studied basic concepts like assimilation - a 3rd grader esl student studies stuff like that. Well done for knowing the three pronunciations of ed endings. Did you learn it on your celta?
Attached is a t. Why? I don't see what this has to do with anything I posted.
Did you learn it on your celta?
Never did a celta, just did a Ph.D. YMMV
PS: You state: "It’s very important to remember that aspiration only occurs at the beginning of stressed syllables, " I'd figure a CELTA certified teacher that holds an M.A. will understand that this is only half of the rule. Word initially is the other half. You've got a lot of editing to do on your website if you want to fix this. Thankfully, most of it is all cut and paste anyways, so you've got that going for you. I hope that they taught you about the two environments on your CELTA. Maybe they didn't.
https://www.englishpronunciationmadrid.com/consonants/consonants/t-d/
Best of luck.
Yes, always
The regular verb ending had 3 distinct sounds. D = Loved/moved/ etc K = Cooked/walked and ED = Pointed/beloved
Most words sound like they’re made of other words. If you can say “the line tensed as the fish took the bait”, then “sentenced” is made of “sen” and “tensed”.
“Attached to” would have a slight exhale between the d and t. Imagine you have something on the tip of your tongue and just a slight “tuh” would get rid of it. Or, the “du” if you whisper the word “duck”.
There's no "d" sound at the end of "attached"
Would I? Yes, it's the difference between present and past tense in these instances.
"Ed kill two more" is a direction, an order. "Ed killed" means he has already done so.
1 missing reply
Yes. The tongue does something different in the 2 different scenarios. A little further back on the palate before the "t" when the "ed" precedes.