Younger people frequently devoice final d while keeping the length of the vowel, so for example “road” ends with a t sound. The word does not become homophonic with “rote” because the latter has a shorter vowel, shorter in the time it takes to pronounce it (“long” and “short” are often used to denote vowel quality but I am not talking about that here.)
I became especially aware of this when I started singing in choirs twenty years ago. A person standing next to me would sing “Lord” ending in a distinct “t” sound, often released. I noticed younger people doing it more than older people. I have mentioned this occasionally in choir practice, and some leaders really don’t want me to end “Lord” with a voiced d, at least not a released voiced d.
Linguists have noticed this, but the articles I have found mostly discuss it happening in African American speech. But I swear I have heard it many times from white native English speakers.
Last week for the umpteenth time I was in the hospital. I told the nurse I would like to walk around the halls. She asked me, “Would you like a rope?” I asked her to repeat herself and finally decided she was saying “robe”. She released the p, too. She sounded like a native English speaker from Minnesota. I couldn’t tell if she was lengthening the vowel. I suppose I could have tried to elicit a minimal pair by asking her something like, “What do you hang people with in this hospital?” but, no…
Send to Kindle
Hmm. I think my usual pronounciation of “rope” ends in a glottal stop (though one with lips in a p position) rather than an actual p. Maybe that’s the other part of the shift?
FWIW, I’m 45, with a western-US accent; I can’t tell from your post whether you would count that as young or old.
Michael Barr said:
Of course, you know that the only difference in most American pronunciation of “latter” and “ladder” is the vowel length and the same for “writer” and “rider”. Incidentally, I think you meant to say “quality”, not “quantity” since you are talking exactly about quantity.
This reminds me of a nearly fruitless discussion I once had with a Dutch postdoc. I asked him if vowel length was significant in Dutch, unlike English (with the minor exceptions mentioned above). He objected that vowel length was significant in English, giving some example like “like” vs. “lick”. I tried to explain to him that that was a difference in quality; calling it length was an example of trying to fit English grammar to that of Latin. He wasn’t having any of it. He was told that that was vowel length and I could not convince him otherwise. Finally, I gave him the example from German of “Staat” vs “Stadt”. Oh yes, Dutch did make that distinction (the same words, probably not spelled the same, were in Dutch).
I think it was the same guy who was surprise when he heard me say, “I will…”. He said he had been drilled for hours on that distinction. I told him that Americans, for the most part, don’t make it. Why then, he asked, had he been drilled for hours. Finally, I guessed that it was because it was easy to drill. Compared, say, to knowing when to use the progressive mode. I would have no idea how to begin to explain that.
I’m curious about the distinction Michael Barr is referring to at the end of his comment. The Dutch postdoc was surprised to hear him say “I will…” as opposed to what?
The Dutch postdoc was surprised to hear him say “I will…” as opposed to what?
Probably “I shall…”
People in the British isles say “I shall” where Americans say “I will”. (But do that only in the first person singular and plural.) They are taught that, and in my experience that usage is a natural part of their language in the sense that even uneducated people say it that way. (I would welcome correction on that point.)
When I was a student in junior high in the 1950’s I was taught that, too, but Americans never actually talk that way except when they are trying to sound educated or hoity-toity (but I repeat myself). That effort to convert us to “I shall” must have been abandoned soon after I went to school because most Americans now are unaware of the whole thing.
I was not (consciously) aware of this distinction, until I looked up “shall” in a dictionary after seeing the comments above and read a rather detailed usage note. In brief, the note said that traditional usage is “I shall, you/he/she will” to express future tense alone, and “I will, you/he/she shall” to express strong determination to do something; the usage note also stated that the distinction has largely disappeared in both British and American English.
After considering this, here are my personal observations:
1) The traditional usage described in the note is consistent with how I would interpret it if I were reading an old book or watching an old play, although I was never taught it. I guess I picked it up from reading such things.
2) I do use “shall” occasionally, and not while (consciously) trying to sound hoity-toity, but only in one way: in a first-person question expressing intent. As in, “Shall I get there at 8?”; “shall” in this case is essentially synonymous with “should”. I’m not sure if this is really in opposition to the usage described in the note, but it’s not really consistent with it.
3) I never paid close attention to it, but I don’t think the British people I’ve spoken with have used “shall” any more than most Americans.
4) I think most Americans express strong determination by using “will” with strong emphasis, the most likely exceptions being in legal documents and legislation.