*folds That depends what you’re doing with them. ‘Fully pronounced’ is not a term recognised in phonology, so I don’t know what you mean. That’s because it’s a different sound to a /h/ at the beginning of a word. The word ‘huh’ consists of a /h/ followed by a schwa vowel. Since vowels are voiced, they cause the vocal folds to adduct and resonate. But the consonant component (the /h/) requires no vocal fold involvement whatsoever. No, that air pressure is being caused by the phonation involved in producing the vowel in ‘huh’. That isn’t necessary in producing /h/.
Not in any way of speaking that I know. The 'h' in 'huh' is almost identical to the 'h' in 'her', except 'her' is longer due to the 'err'. The point you're missing is that the diaphragm is used far more than in a glottal stop. Of course, your accent might not be the same. But the glottal stop in Cockney, for example, is absolutely less energetic than received pronunciation or any other London accent I know.
That is not in dispute. But it isn’t what you originally said. You were originally comparing /h/ (the phoneme) to ‘huh’ (the word) as evidence that /h/, apparently redefined to include a vowel, required more energy and glottal involvement than a glottal stop. What I’m trying to explain is that these are incomparable. The reason why you think this is true is because you are confusing the respiratory requirements for production of the phoneme /h/ with those required for its production followed by a vowel. Of course ‘huh’ and ‘her’ require more energy to produce - they contain longer and voiced sounds when compared to /h/ in isolation. So it’s really not helpful to use these words and sounds in determining the relative energy requirements for production of /h/ and the glottal stop. Take it from a professional linguist and phonetician - it really isn’t. The glottal stop absolutely requires more energy to produce than a glottal fricative.
I wouldn’t be persisting if (a) it wasn’t my profession [and professional skills being questioned] and (b) if I didn’t suspect that the reason why the argument is happening at all was due to a snobbish dislike of the glottal stop.
And as always, if someone isn't interested in a thread they can just go away and read something else - they don't have to make snarky comments in the thread. Personally I'm finding it interesting - I know very little about the subject and it's a cool glimpse into another knowledge set.
Actually I fine phonology and articulation fascinating. If you want to be really pedantic, [h] and [ʔ] (glottal stop) are not phonemes but are allophones of the phoneme /h/, because they do not create contrast in meaning (in English, or in any language as far as I know). In other words there are no two words which differ in their phonemic representation only by one having a /h/ and the other having a /ʔ/ in a given position. Or to use the technical terminology, there is no minimal pair for [h] and [ʔ].
No I'm not. I'm examining the respiratory requirements of a word such as 'her', comparing received pronunciation with the use of glottal stop. The vowel is irrelevant. Then we'll have to agree to disagree, because a glottal fricative clearly requires more air to produce a clear sound, which means greater use of diaphragm. A glottal stop can be clearly produced with virtually no air at all.
Perhaps your 'w' is quite 'breathy', compared to the English 'w'. I would say 'well' as - 'oooell'. There's no blowing at all. That's extremely soft, almost as soft as a vowel.
The diaphragm is required for both. How else does sub- and intra-glottal pressure build? The difference is that with a fricative, the air is released gradually, and with a plosive, it is abrupt. Which means energy is required both before and after the production of the sound, as articulators (in this case the glottis itself) has to be held in a closed position until sufficient pressure has been built. And the articulators have to resist the pressure behind and below them, which requires energy. If you really don’t believe me, get a spirometer, and articulate both /h/ and /ʔ/ into it. You can use the volume, velocity and a few other variables of the air flow to calculate the amount of energy involved in producing the sound. We did this in the lab for my undergrad to demonstrate exactly this phenomenon - that plosives require more energy than fricatives. Of course, a fricative (or, indeed, a vowel) can be extended to a length limited only by lung capacity. So /h:::::/ (an extremely elongated /h/) would require more energy to produce than /ʔ/ (a glottal stop produced at normal speech length). But that would not represent normal speech sound length; phonemes last for only a fraction of a second, and in fact /h/ is barely audible itself. It is detectable mostly by the way it interacts with the fundamental frequency of the vowel which follows it.
I don't need to use scientific devices or fancy language to be able to examine the difference in the muscles of my abdomen when making different sounds. As I've said quite clearly, a glottal stop can be audibly produced with almost no air at all. The build-up of pressure is minimal. The pressure for a clear glottal fricative is greater, because the air makes much less sound as it passes through, so you need to compensate. And it's not a snobbish opinion. I use glottal stops all the time.
Is there any chance you guys can take this argument to PM? It's gotten way off topic. Thanks in advance!
Wait, so what you're saying is, "herb" was originally, in British English, pronounced with an H sound? YES! TAKE THAT, EVERYONE WHO CORRECTED ME! MY WAY CAME FIRST! I live in the United States, if you couldn't tell.
There's ambiguity in Manuel. It could be "man yoo ell" or "man well". I realize that to you, those two man sound the same, but in my accent, "well" is absolutely not "oo ell". It's, well, "well". Pronunciation of "well": https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/pronunciation/american/well_3
