Voiceless vowels in English

[Benjamin Barrett]

On Apr 8, 2008, at 11:29 AM, Laurence Horn wrote:

>
>
> At 11:07 AM -0700 4/8/08, Benjamin Barrett wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Laurence Horn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> At 10:43 AM -0700 4/8/08, Benjamin Barrett wrote:
>>>> I recall learning that we don't have voiceless vowels in English.
>>>>
>>>> Two words have recently come to my attention, though, that seem to:
>>>> Chicago and hilarious.
>>>>
>>>> The first "i" in Chicago seems to vary between voiceless and
>>>> nonexistent (onset = [shk]). In hilarious, the first "i" in
>>>> hilarious
>>>> seems to range from +/- voiceless [I] to+/- schwa.
>>>>
>>>> I can understand that the [I] in Chicago goes voiceless because of
>>>> the
>>>> voiceless environment.
>>>>
>>>> In hilarious, it seems the environment inducing this is the
>>>> unstressed
>>>> syllable [hI]. Hibachi and Hidalgo seem to work the same. Perhaps
>>>> this
>>>> is because the voicing of the vowel is permitted to be delayed to
>>>> the
>>>> next consonant.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a general rule for devoiced vowels in English?
>>>>
>>> You're not counting the "h" in "aha" or (the second one) in "uh-huh"
>>> as voiceless vowels, I take it?
>>>
>> I think I'm missing the point of your question. Each of those words
>> have two voiced vowels for me, though the [h] is devoiced. BB
>>
> But isn't the "h" in such cases phonetically a voiceless [a] and a
> voiceless [^] respectively?
>

I see your point, now. Those are interesting additions to the devoiced
vowels! BB

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org