Skip to main content

phonology - Why do photons and protons exhibit such anomalous behavior?


I first noticed in this answer that there is something sneaky going on with the word photon: its ‹t› is the stressed allophone of /t/, a fully aspirated [tʰ]. It does not reduce to [t] or [ɾ] the way it does in words like voting. Other words with the same issue include proton and lepton.


The only way I can explain this would be if the second syllable in such words bears secondary stress, so [ˈfoʊˌtʰɑn].


Even so, the question remains: why does this happen? Is it because these are all “new” words? Or does Greek somehow enter into it?


I notice other new scientific terms have the related issue of an unreduced vowel in the syllable without primary stress, such as in hadron, quasar, protein, baryon, genome.


So the ‹t› in proton and photon works more like it does in Motown or cow town, but those are at morphemic boundaries. The only “old” word I could think of where it might work the same way (remain aspirated) might be in canton. But there the vowel in the unstressed syllable does seem a bit reduced, just not all the way.


What is really going on here?



Edit: The mid-word aspirated ‹t› also occurs in futon and wonton (as in wonton soup), but not in Briton, Milton, tartan, titan, wanton (as in a wanton woman).



Answer



As Bruce Hayes (UCLA) puts it,



Word-medial voiceless stops are aspirated provided they are in the onset of a stressed syllable and are not preceded by a strident (Hayes 1995: 13).



Thus,


proton [ˈpʰɹouˌtʰɑn] in AmE.


There's no secondary stress in "voting" in AmE.


See a note on aspiration in the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (3rd ed., Wells 2008: 45) - those rules are rather comprehensive; at least, that should be enough for someone who's not a professional phonetician.


The most important thing to remember is that aspiration is not binary, aspirated or unaspirated, but rather gradual. See fig. 6.6 in Ladefoged 2006, A Course in English Phonetics.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more