36

It is kind of convention to assign the phonemic value /p/ to the p in spin, since there is no minimal pair /p/:/b/ in this environment (words like *sbin don't exist). Now comes the fun part: In English, there is a double contrast between /p/ and /b/ in initial position: The p is voiceless and aspirated [ph], the b is voiced and not aspirated [b]. The p in ...


15

First, there is a lot of variation in English, so don't expect the facts to be the same for all speakers. Second, it's unclear what you mean by "really". There is phonological analysis, and there is acoustic analysis. The standard mostly-phonological analysis is that "pin" has aspirated [pʰ] and "spin" has unaspirated [p], but they reflect a single phoneme /...


15

Sanskrit, the Middle Indian languages, and most modern Indo-Aryan languages have a four-way distinction p~ph~b~bh. Punjabi has lost the bh-series (‘voiced aspirates’) and replaced it by a difference in tone, so it can be argued that Punjabi has only a three-way distinction p~ph~b (though it could also be argued that it has a four-way distinction at a ...


12

Definitely yes, only your phonetic notation is not very correct. Proto-Indo-European had such stops, Sanskrit and most Indian languages have them, too ([bʱ], [d̪ʱ], [gʱ], [dʒʱ], [ɖʱ]), the very name of India in Hindi, भारत [ˈbʱaːrət̪], has the [bʱ] sound, you can listen to the word here. Note, since the stops are voiced, so the aspiration is also voiced (...


10

The notion "degree of X" really requires a three-way distinction to be valid, as in degrees of length (Estonian, Saami, Dinka), nasalization (Palantla Chinantec) or breathiness (Bor Dinka). If there are only two systematic values, we say "it is" or "it isn't", and we don't have to say "how much" (degree). In the present case, it is likely that you are using ...


8

Since syllable-final voiceless consonants are also not aspirated ([ɹæt], not *[ɹætʰ]), we generally focus on saying when you get aspiration, and don't say that voiceless stops are intrinsically aspirated. So the rule for assigning aspiration to otherwise unaspirated voiceless stops is that they are aspirated syllable-initially. In skill, /k/ is not syllable ...


7

Many languages have sounds that could be called puffs of air, which may be transcribed as [ɸ w̥ ʍ h ɦ hʷ] People generally blow out candles with pursed lips, which could reduce the set of candidates to [ɸ w̥ ʍ hʷ]. "Puff", however, implies a higher rate of flow that encountered in [hʷ] or even [ɸ] -- perhaps the aspiration of [tʰ] is closer to a &...


7

Danish has no voiced plosives but two series of voiceless plosives, aspirated and unaspirated. These are typically transcribed with <p, t, k; b, d, ɡ> rather than the more phonetically representative <pʰ, tʰ, kʰ; p, t, k>, and even when phonetic precision is called for, with <pʰ, tˢ, kʰ; b̥, d̥, ɡ̊> or <b̥ʰ, d̥ˢ, ɡ̊ʰ; b̥, d̥, ɡ̊>. ...


6

Aspiration is usually defined as a distinctive increase in voice onset time between the release of a consonant and the initiation of voicing on the segment after the release of the consonant. This is easy to determine in the case of stops, where there is a period of near-silence and then a burst of air due to the release of pressure behind the complete ...


5

There is no phonetic difference between voiceless aspirated vs. unaspirated trill, and phonologically speaking, voiceless trills (and other sonorants) behave like they are aspirates. The distinction between trill and tap has to do with the number of hits. It is likely that Ancient Greek initial r (ῥ) was not a fricative and was voiceless, but it would take ...


5

In English, aspirated "p" as in "pin" ([pʰ]) and unaspirated "p" as in "spin" ([p]) are allophones: two different phones that represent the same phoneme /p/. However, there are languages that do make a phonemic distinction between the two, so rather than being two allophones of a single phoneme, they are separate phonemes /p/ and /pʰ/ in their own right. ...


4

I don't think issue has been explored in a systematic way, and it's not clear how it could be. Theoretically, one might record human language contrasts like tal, thal, ttal uttered by a parrot (how do you decide that the parrot intended to utter tal versus thal?), and present them to human speakers of the language, to see if (without training) they correctly ...


4

Just to give you some more data, by analyzing the UPSID, I have come up with the following list of languages that specifically have this three way contrast in stops, and no other phonation distinctions in stops (according to the UPSID data): BRUU BURMESE BURUSHASKI COFAN EPENA PEDEE ? GUAHIBO (has [p, b, t̪ʰ, t, d, k; also t͡s]; Note that [t̪ʰ] is ...


3

The fundamental (and contrastive) difference between phonologically aspirated stops and phonological affricates is the nature of the release. Aspiration is turbulent noise whose source is the glottis, thus aspiration has formant structure similar to the following sonorant, and a resulting low COG, and diffuse spectrum. Frication noise has its source in the ...


3

The affricate /tʃ/ does not behave differently from the stops /p t k/ w.r.t. aspiration. The relevant contexts for aspiration are bit more complicated and are best stated in terms of foot-initial (aspirated) vs. foot-non-initial positions, with some provision for C#ˈV contexts where there is no aspiration ("watch Oscar; set Oscar; stop Oscar"). In final ...


3

Phonetically, the main theory I've heard is that voiced/voiceless/aspirated consonants are distinguished by voice onset time. VOT is the time delta between when the consonant stops and when the vocal folds start vibrating. If the VOT is positive, then there's a gap between the consonant ending and the vowel beginning. This is aspiration. If the VOT is ...


3

The problem is that if all consonants are the same thing, what are they? Aspiration is generally understood to refer to voice onset time, with larger values being "aspirated". But there is no threshold for deeming a sound "aspirated" as opposed to "unaspirated" if all consonants are the same. You might take the VOT values of unaspirated stops in languages ...


2

Aspiration and voicing are not mutually exclusive phenomenon. You can certainly have a plosive that is voiceless (the more usual term for what you give as "unvoiced") and unaspirated (the one you are missing above), like [p] in English spin [spɪn], one that is voiceless and aspirated, like [pʰ] in English pin [pʰɪn], one that is voiced and unaspirated, like [...


2

they're opposites in terms of voice onset, which would make them mutually exclusive. As far as I know, that is true. A sound that can be produced is a murmured plosive (they are sometimes called voiced aspirated). Whilst an aspirated consonant has the phonation type of a [h] a murmured consonant has the phonation of a [ɦ]. They are similar in that murmured ...


2

I am bilingual in Korean and English. I have always held the view that the difference between 'ㅂ' and 'ㅍ' is not aspiration -- they are both aspirated as you have observed. However, the uniqueness of the 'ㅂ' is that it is a voiced, aspirated, bilabial plosive as oppsed to the unvoiced 'ㅍ', which is 100% identical in sound to the English 'p'. However, no such ...


2

Apart from the fact that English p,t,k are aspirated, b,d,g are also different from b,d,g in French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese in not being "as voiced", in initial position – often, they are produced as voiceless unaspirated stops, especially d,g. But "unaspirated" means "very short delay between release of the constriction and the start of voicing". ...


2

The term "tenuis" in linguistics is not an absolute phonetic description, it is a relative term, similar to "unmarked". The consonant b is voiced, the consonant p is not. When describing an instance of p as being tenuis (or not), that presupposed that you are talking about kinds of p, in which case you might be dealing with [pʰ], [p'] or [p]. "Tenuis" simply ...


2

Tenuis is a term used to refer to voiceless plosives [p, t, k], especially ones that are unaspirated, so it doesn't apply to [m], which is by definition voiced. Burmese has voiceless [m̥], but not aspirated [mʰ]. Burmese /m̥/ is typically partially voiced [m̥͡m] according to Watkins (2001), so that realization can be considered as having a negative VOT.


2

You can search for the segment [tʃʰ] at Phoible and get quite an impressive list of languages having it. Clicking on Mundari as a randomly chosen example confirms that it contrasts with non-aspirated [tʃ] in that language.


1

If you allow for clusters across syllable boundaries, English could be an example what hand = /wɒt.hænd/ what and = /wɒtʰ.ænd/


1

It has been proposed that this contrast (aspiration vs. cluster consonant + [h]) does not exist (Kehrein & Golston 2004). The formal explanation is that aspiration is a property of the onset, not of individual segments. So, in an onset aspiration can occur once and it may be realized on the stop or as an [h] (or variably as both), but a contrast is not ...


1

The simplest answer is that it is a natural outcome of the mechanism for producing a voiceless consonant. The vocal folds are generally spread during production of voiceless consonants (to keep them from vibrating). In the transition from voiceless to following voiced (sonorant), the vocal folds must be adducted, but this takes some time. That lag is called "...


1

"Aspiration" is used in multiple ways, phonetically and phonologically, which can lead to some confusion, and Wiki reflects that confusion. Given that you're appealing to physical production and not phonology, I assume you don't care about aspiration as a phonological property, you just are about production (Wiki articles have many authors so there is no ...


1

In Zulu is there is a contrast between aspirated voiceless, unaspirated (weak) ejective, and ostensively voiced stops. Aspirated consonants deaspirate after a nasal, so /izim-phaphe/ → [izim-paphe] 'feathers', cf. /izim-pete/ → [izim-pete] 'knock-kneed person'; see also your example "chicken". While /k, kh/ neutralize, /g/ remains distinct. However, ...


1

My comment is not that of an expert and I can't cite any source but I still feel like confirming your guess: /d/ can be aspiratedly realized in English - in the british variant that is. I've heard some brits speaking and some - those who are said to have a very strong british accent, seem to put more air out when pronouncing consonants, /d/ included.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible