Re: Subtitutes for English /T/ and /D/

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:39:30 -0700, Dominic Bojarski
<dominicbojarski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:1185129570.247612.61150@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:

On Jul 22, 7:21 pm, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <1185094498.381268.76...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Dominic Bojarski <dominicbojar...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

I doubt that many unexposed native speakers would readily interpret
"vose" (those), "boaff" (both), and "maff" (math) without sufficient
context.

When are you imagining that people would be speaking "without
sufficient context"? How often do you really think such scenarios
occur (outside of a linguist's interrogation of an informant)?

Quite frequently, actually. I often ask my students to repeat what
they said because I can't make it out. One of the culprits is the [f
v] substitution.

The second and third of your examples are quite common in my
experience, and I've never had the slightest difficulty
interpreting either.

Why do you claim it "sounds bizarre"?

Because it does. Extremely. Haven't you ever heard anyone with this
problem before? It's downright irritating.

Since when are dialects "problems"? I don't find AAVE or Cockney
"irritating". I find the former interesting and the latter charming.

I said nothing of the sort. The problem pertains to ESL/EFL learners,
not to native speakers.

My Brazilian colleague who substitutes [f] for [T] has a
rather charming accent; I'm certainly not irritated by the
substitution, and I've never heard anyone else even comment
on it.

[...]

Brian
.

Quantcast