ant=VCC is that correct ?

[alm-alr]

I am reading online book about  Syllable structure of English  , the author says that  the word "ant'  has VCC syllable ,i think something wrong here  ....generally speaking if we can start with a vowel so, it's no longer a vowel  ....can anyone explain  how  could one start with a vowel,and still  we call  it   a  vowel  !!!

[Jeff L.]

A word is allowed to start with a vowel in English, though this isn't true for all languages.

The structure of a syllable broadly has three positions: the onset (initial Cs), the nucleus (generally V or an otherwise syllabic segment) and the coda (ending Cs). The onset is optional in English (ex: ant, am, eat, ill), as is the coda (ex: bee, boo, true (assuming the final glides generally found are not treated as a coda, which it normally isn't)). The onset and coda can therefore be empty slots in the normal "tree" for English syllables. The only "mandatory" element of a syllable in all languages is the nucleus...which is why it's the nucleus!

What else would you propose is at the start of words like "ant"? (Do you put a glottal stop? Etc.)

[freknu]

A glottal stop is not phonemic in English, therefor "ant" does indeed begin with a vowel: /ˈænt/. PhantomSoul also gave a good explanation of general syllabic structures in English.

[alm-alr]

"""""What else would you propose is at the start of words like "ant"? (Do you put a glottal stop? Etc.)""""""
yes, a glottal stop that's  what i think ,consequently  "ant' must be "ʔant " it means CVCC and not VCC.
I can not  imagine the initial ''Vowel " without a starting point or prepairng process, otherwise it means that the vocal cords are ever vibrating without limit, and when we pronounce initial "vowel''we only widen our mouth to let others hear it !! No, this would be unbelievable. There is a preparing stage with ''?"where the vocal cords close the airstream completly for a very brief  time then,they open-as if they release a plosive "?" and start vibration so that the vowel
is ready .if you go to Praat program and record a simple syllable like "am" then reverse the selection " the whole syllable" and replay ,you will recognize the sound of glottal stop (ʔ) irrespective of your native Language. If you make the reverse selection for the same word "ant" you will also recognize the (ʔ) !!!!!that's why i said VCC for "ant" is not correct !!!
I read once    there was a discussion on this at an ICPhS in the seventies, I think, with the Swedish example  "allon" sounding like "nolla?" (? = glottal stop) when reversed. The discussants were   bewildered  because of  this result.This  as well confirms the fact that (gl.stop ?) is the start point of the initial vowel and no initial vowel without it.

[Daniel]

Phonetically speaking, there is always a glottal opening (=second half of a glottal stop, so initial glottal stop) before an "initial" vowel.

Phonologically speaking, we only consider that to be part of the word if the language has contrastive glottal stops.

On determining whether there is a glottal stop phonemically, it's somewhat difficult. It's fairly easy to tell between vowels, though it could just be a part of the system (phonology) that when there are two vowels they are pronounced with hiatus, as is the case in French for example. Naïve is pronounce with a pause between the [a] and [i ], indicated by the diaresis (umlaut) diacritic. But I don't think anyone considers French to have a glottal stop phoneme.
And I doubt that it's very easy to hear a word initial glottal stop, unless it is aspirated (etc.). Word-final glottal stops might be a little easier if they are released, but it could be easy to not hear them as well.

So when determining whether they are phonemic, one test is how word boundaries are produced:

In a language like Spanish (and some degree for English) a V-V intersection between words is usually linked with no pause. This is so much so that "Una agua" is typically just produced as "Un agua" and that's even systematic in the orthography, though agreement with the word is still feminine. ("El agua" is used for the definite form, though, with a masculine article-- probably an analogy to 'un'.) Regardless of that detail, this is systematic: two vowels merge into one between words, so you might have something like "la estandarización" produced as "lastandarización". So here there simply are no glottal stops in that case, not phonemically nor phonetically.

In a language like German, there is a systematic pause in such cases so both vowels are articulated clearly and independently. (Of course there are exceptions with fast speech phenomena, but not as much as in English or Spanish.) Here there is a phonetic glottal stop (due to the phonology-- epenthetic), but there is no phoneme because it is entirely predictable and not contrastive.

In Arabic, there is a phonemic glottal stop, which can be used word-initially, word-medially or word-finally. It is at the very least contrastive in the middle of words and I've been told it is contrastive at the beginning or end (perhaps due to effects of V-V boundaries between words), but I can't personally hear it, even when (out of curiosity) I asked a native speaker to produce a word (in isolation) with a glottal stop. Since Arabic doesn't have aspirated stops, I don't know how anyone would, but I have heard native speakers can (at least sometimes-- not sure exactly when).

[alm-alr]

Hi , thanx to those whose contributions have helped  me to learn more and more , djr33 u have right when  differentiating  between the  Phonetic Vs Phonological view to the existence of the glottal stop .... Maybe I am not as good as you are, in phonetics and phonology ,nevertheless I try to be a good one. I will make my  POV in two major points.

1- I hope according to the following explanation I will offer hereunder,that we agree that phonation is can-at least-visualized as a chopping process of air stream then I will go forward to the 2nd point :
two years ago a friend of mine told me that when he reversed (on Praat) a syllable of a sonorant followed by a vowel , like (m+e ) for example he recognize the sound of (hem) , when I myself repeat this process with different combinations, the results was beyond my little understanding :with "ke' the result is '"hek"'or rather '"haik", with "'se'' the result is ''hes ''or rather ''hais'' .I dropped a question on Praat-users group , received different explanations . Endly I found a better explanation which I did accept and developed:


the reason that 'h'' occures in the reversed section of 'm+e “ is :as soon as the vocal cords stop vibration,there will come little air, occures as ''h” as secondary product because the process of "'vowel -e-'' phonation is indeed a chopping process of continouse airstream or continouse "' stream of -h- itself ''.As soon as chopping ends up i.e.vibration stops ,the 'h'' occures as a residual or by-product of this process .But if we reverse a syllable like /mes/ there will be no chance to ''h''occurrence since /s/ will follow the vowel directly.
Let me resemble the phonation process of vowel ''e'' with another natural process.If i have an ''extruder'' which pushes a stream of clay or dough,followed by a "'cutter''which performs chopping of the clay or dough at 40 times per second.I would expect that as soon as the cutter stops chopping, there still a little bar of non chopped dough passes -or escapes-through.This simulation could be a good explanation why ''h'' occures in our topic.The extruder may simulates the lungs function and the cutter for the vocal cords function. This means that the glottis function is like a chopping valve of the airstream of “h”,just like an electro- DC to AC converter .
If you accept this explanation (as I hope ) let me move to the 2nd point

2- The glottis can be more than on-off valve ,it has also a function of controlling or regulating the volume of air passing through it /per unit of time . If you give a look to the figure here on the link
http://clas.mq.edu.au/speech/phonetics/phonetics/airstream_laryngeal/pulmonic.html
,you can visualize the glottis(including the vocal folds) as a multi function valve

a- converting the air stream expelled by the Lungs /through a process like chopping as above mentioned/ into complicated vocal waves
b- the glottis plays another role as a regulating valve.This regulation is done through either
complete closure or partial closure .In case of complete closure ( valve is off: infinite resistance to air flow , the air flow in “STOP POSITION” this position is responsible for the glottal stop initiation , But partial closure ( low or less resistance ) is responsible for initiation the “h' phone.We notice that “h' is very short and mostly can not exist alone without vowel because it's an air stream whose resistance is very low compared to “s” or 'f” or any other fricative (try it yourself to realize how long can h stay in your mouth ...it's indeed very short due to low resistance which( aerodynamically) points out to large volume of air/ per time unit for specific pressure of lungs.
So I think that those who claim the existence of glottal stop in the beginning of initial vowel like in “ant'” are right because they initiate their own vowel with a glottal stop ,and those who claims there is not any glottal stop in their own initial vowel are also right ,except that the 2nd discussants maybe not aware that they initiate their own vowel with “h” but so light that they don't recognize it or the initial vowels utterance is done ( abruptly) without noticing the short 'h' .
Accordingly , I would modify my previous statement where I said “”””
But for me I can not imagine the initial ''Vowel " without a starting point or preparing process, otherwise it means that the vocal cords are ever vibrating without limit, and when we pronounce initial "vowel''we only widen our mouth to let others hear it !! “”” and would say (….....without a starting point which is either glottal stop for those who initiate their own vowel with it, or with “impalpable h” for others )

According to the above-mentioed point concerning the chopping function of the vocal cords there will be no “VOICING” without airstream , and this airstream can be said as h-airstream ,so the occurrence of either “h' (directly ) or glottal stop a little moment before it ,is undoubtedly in my POV and according to the above-said reasons.
I think this is the main reason that we find a lot of words in the same family of languages ,appears sometimes with “h” consonant and other times without it (I mean with glottal stop ) .Example
Uhr(ger.)-ora(it)-hawr (welch) with h , also the example I gave before 'hotel eng.Vs otel tur.” and so on .
I would ask you to listen to these  2 german voices ,both  pronounce the same word "Ende=end"  and tell me whether  my POV is correct or not , can u recognize who among these 2 voices has made the vowel voice onset with glottalization , and who does not !!!! Here are the voices
http://www.forvo.com/word/ende/#de

[alm-alr]

Sorry, i forget to tell something else relating to my above- said POV.One of the comments i received for my question ( i told you about 2 years ago )  was from Paul Boersma , whom u  know i  guess  he said  literarily  at the end of his email about the question i dropped :
Schachter & Otanes claim phonological initial glottal stops and final /h/ for Tagalog, and especially for the phonemicity of the initial glottal stop there is lots of evidence (see also Koleen Matsuda French). Prince & Smolensky, in their early work in Optimality Theory, chose to ignore that evidence and stay with their English-centered bias, leading to their broken analysis of Tagalog but to one of the most influential recent theories of phonology. So you're in good company.

 

[Daniel]

I would ask you to listen to these  2 german voices ,both  pronounce the same word "Ende=end"  and tell me whether  my POV is correct or not , can u recognize who among these 2 voices has made the vowel voice onset with glottalization , and who does not !!!! Here are the voices
http://www.forvo.com/word/ende/#de

The first recording (name starts with W) sounds like it has something more than just a vowel, and the second recording has what sounds like a normal vowel to me. But those recordings are not very high quality, so it could just be an artifact of the microphone/compression format.


Overall, I think it really depends on why you want to make this distinction. What is the purpose? Using phonetic measures doesn't tell us anything about phonology unless there is a reason to believe that what you find in the phonetic detail is somehow related to the phonology of the language. So hearing sounds (especially when you are reversing the audio signal!) might be meaningless. But if there's something systematic to it, that could either be: 1) interesting at the level of phonology, or 2) predictable at the level of phonology and therefore just a phonetic effect.

[alm-alr]

djr33"""Overall, I think it really depends on why you want to make this distinction. What is the purpose? Using phonetic measures doesn't tell us anything about phonology unless there is a reason to believe that what you find in the phonetic detail is somehow related to the phonology of the language. So hearing sounds (especially when you are reversing the audio signal!) might be meaningless. But if there's something systematic to it, that could either be: 1) interesting at the level of phonology, or 2) predictable at the level of phonology and therefore just a phonetic effect.""""""

So, you mean (reversing the audio signal in my reversed selection experiment above !) might be meaningless,and consequently i built up  my POV or aassumptions  which i explained  above on a myth         but these  assumptions seem to me very plausible   
However we will see .......as for the purpose ,I am  sometimes  involved  with  teaching Ar. to   non- Arabic people ,and can feel how   they are dealing ""with greatest difficulty" with the Ar. glottal stop in all positions (word-initial - word-medial - or final ) ,that's why i am interested in such topic and try to find the solution specially with those who "do'nt pronounce
 " the Hamza in initial position and start a word like "Umm :mother  as if it has no hamza!!!!

[Daniel]

they are dealing ""with greatest difficulty" with the Ar. glottal stop in all positions (word-initial - word-medial - or final )

The greatest difficulty is a glottal stop? Not the pharyngealized ("emphatic"/"magestic") consonants? (ض ص ط ظ)

those who "do'nt pronounce
 " the Hamza in initial position and start a word like "Umm :mother  as if it has no hamza!!!!

What is the actual distinction? I still don't understand how this is possible. Everyone opens the vocal folds to begin a vowel, so a glottal release is necessary. There is no aspiration or other release that would distinguish it as far as I know. Can you explain the difference? Does this in some way "color" the vowel like the pharyngeal fricative 'aiyn? (ع)

[alm-alr]

Hi, as i told before i am here to learn not to teach   
I will answer your last questions one by one,  be patient , but before can u  please tell me why have u described the ("emphatic"/"magestic") consonants? (ض ص ط ظ) as pharyngealized while they are all articulated in the oral cavity !!!!  as far as i know the consonants ( ح and ع : ḥ and ʕ )
are described as pharyngeal/ pharyngealized !!!! This classification  is new  or what do u mean !!!!!

[Daniel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphatic_consonant

For example ط is just like ت [t] + ع [ʕ] = [tˤ].

(The exception is [q] ق, which is just uvular instead of velar [k] ك, but may also have a bit of pharyngealization but not quite in the same sense.)


So pharyngealization is a property of consonants, such as a pharyngealized [t] being [tˤ].
Pharyngeal consonants are just produced in the pharynx, so [ʕ] and the others as you said above.

This is a kind of "secondary articulation".



Anyway, that point in my post was not very important. I just don't understand why a glottal stop is relatively hard to produce: there are harder sounds in Arabic. ghain غ [ɣ] is also hard.

So what is a glottal stop in Arabic? How is it produced at the beginning of a sentence? Why are learners wrong?
(I genuinely want to know. This is an interesting question.)

[alm-alr]

Dear djr33
 I am sorry for being late to reply to your post , because I was in a hard discussion  somewhere( another forum ) and all the discussants were against me .
Let us postpone the discussion about  glottal stop (hamza)  and the problems of learners  with it , for the time being  , because some of these  problems  relating to reciting of Quran ( which is a bit complicated  and could take us out of the scope of this forum) .
   I think you have  paid my attention  to  something -very important to me  - about the Ar.(emphatic/majestic ) 'Alhuruf Almufexxemeh or Almusta'liya  as called by Sibawayh '' I used it in my argument which I  told you about , where I said precisely ''
I will give an example of the feature of one of these emphatics .it's “ tˤ ط “An English discussant in another forum has attracted my attention to an important note when he said an emphatic like “tˤ “ ط i s pharyngealized as if it's a combination of “ t+ pharyngeal ayn ʕ “ for me it means that tˤ has 2 components and may appear outside it's Ar. environment as either 't' or something else.
In her thesis (Towards a Comparative Typology of Emphatics Across Semitic and into Arabic Dialect Phonology ) Dr. Alex Bellem (Durham University ) had quoted from “Sibawayh:an Ar. Ancient grammarian “ the description that he gave to some Ar.consonants including the emphatics where he called them“ alhuruf al mustaʕliya” because their articulation is related with elevation movement of the tongue “to the upper palate “ She also added “”This notion of the uvulars and emphatics being commonly ‘elevated’ persists throughout the Arabic tradition.”””
also Sibwayh notes that ‘these four [precisely the emphatics consonants] have two places on the tongue ,one with the upper palate and other part of the tongue opposite the velum .

This means that the semitic/Ar.emphatics has such “””tendency to change"" their basic position /articulation , thus appears in different forms when they leave their semitic environment , for example a consonant like dˤ ض can appear as “z” or “d” or ð ذ or even “th”

That was a suggestion from me to explain some thing over these emphatics .
But a discussant  asked  me  this  question  „“““““As you are a speaker of Arabic, I am sure you will agree that /t/ + /ʕ/ in, for example, /ʔatʕabu/ أتعب does not sound the slightest bit like ط. „“““''
Although , I know it was silly question  but want to discuss  how can I convince the others about your idea,the questions here are
1- Can  the articulation of ( tˤ ط )  be  described by having  .beside 't' a secondary articulation or precisely is it a  double  articulation ?
2- how can we phonetically prove this , i mean any way  to show this  experimentally  ?? otherwise it is only theoretical  assumption!!
3- I  would suggest that if there is any kind of secondary articulation or even double articulation of
 ' tˤ ط '   it would be with „q-qaf   i.e tˤ =t+q   because ''q'' is also an emphatic and it's easy to visualize : non emphatic+ emphatic produce emphatic,  also the articulations of tˤ  and Qaf  are  nearby  ?? in this case we have also to   prove  it phonetically or experimentally !!!

[Daniel]

The phonetic features are well established. One modern way to show this is to use fMRI to give us a modern equivalent to x-rays. Certainly it isn't exactly the same as 1+1=2 due to articulators interaction and so forth but it's close. I don't see how it would be q because that is a stop. Doubly articulated stops exist (as in Igbo including its name) but that isn't what happens in Arabic.

[alm-alr]

The phonetic features are well established. One modern way to show this is to use fMRI to give us a modern equivalent to x-rays. Certainly it isn't exactly the same as 1+1=2 due to articulators interaction and so forth but it's close. I don't see how it would be q because that is a stop. Doubly articulated stops exist (as in Igbo including its name) but that isn't what happens in Arabic.

I have not heard about this ""The phonetic features """   which you described as """well established""  will you please give any reference, any research ,,,,  because this point is very important in comparative linguistics which I am interested in  !!!!!!!