21

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).

Community
  • 1
tchrist
  • 134,759
  • 1
    I would suspect that as you suggest it's a combination of novelty and their being more clearly loan words than some others, means that they haven't been fully pounded into English. I don't have anything to back that up as an answer though. – Jon Hanna Jan 16 '13 at 12:16
  • 4
    Perhaps because the 'endings' in those second syllables, although bound, have lexical rather than merely grammatical force? Compare proton/protean or photon/photic. – StoneyB on hiatus Jan 16 '13 at 13:19
  • 5
    I suspect it's the secondary stress. Everybody says /proʊtɑn/ and not /proʊtən/. If the second syllable didn't have secondary stress, you could reduce the vowel. Compare crouton, which also has secondary stress on the on. (And listening to some pronunciations on Forvo, Avon seems to in the U.S. but not the U.K.) – Peter Shor Jan 16 '13 at 13:46
  • 6
    When I read this question initially I thought someone had accidentally posted a physics.SE question here! – Marcus_33 Jan 16 '13 at 14:43
  • Photon is "created" (1926 in modern sense) from the combining form φωτ- (phōt-) of Ancient Greek φῶς (phōs, “light”). Most "new scientific terms" have no documented pronunciation analysis, only a record of how it has been "historically" pronounced. As such an answer to this question would be subject to conjecture -- an open question. [cf. etymonline, wiktionary] On the same lines do proton & lepton follow. – Kris Jan 16 '13 at 15:08
  • 4
    For a rather drastically different scheme for naming particles, you might be interested in Uncleftish Beholding. The words it uses for proton and photon are firstbit and lightbit. :) – starwed Jan 16 '13 at 17:40
  • 1
    I've edited the tags to include [american-english] because the t-reduction detailed in the first paragraph does not generally apply to British English. – Andrew Leach Jan 16 '13 at 18:27
  • @AndrewLeach I believe was a mistake: I know of no variety of regional English in which [tʰ] regularly occurs anywhere but at the onset of a stressed syllable. It’s the aspiration that is unexpected here. It doesn’t matter whether you reduce ‹t› to an unaspirated [t], to a flap [ɾ], or even to a glottal [ʔ]. As illustration, please consider the word tatter in RP: only the initial ‹t› is [tʰ]; the later one is merely [t]. – tchrist Jan 17 '13 at 05:01
  • @starwed for trivia, renaissance 'polyglot' Walter Russell developed a systemization of the subatomic structures with [proposedly] predictive power to discover deuterium and other – New Alexandria Jan 20 '13 at 19:28
  • 1
    @tchrist - your example, tatter, doesn't work in British English - the initial t is pronounced almost exactly as the second one, with a little more stress on the syllable. This question makes no sense in British pronunciation. – Rory Alsop Jan 20 '13 at 20:53
  • @RoryAlsop Yes it does! You are talking about flap-reduction, and I am talking about aspiration. See the difference? – tchrist Jan 20 '13 at 21:07
  • nope - but happy to learn. Do you have any audio? To me they sound identical in British English (I understand the difference in US pronunciations) – Rory Alsop Jan 20 '13 at 22:07
  • @tchrist: Perhaps this will convince you that the t in photon and the t in photos are both aspirated in RP. I can't hear any difference in any case. Note that aspiration is stronger if the t occurs in the onset of a stressed syllable. http://books.google.nl/books?id=JSs-XyYukIoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=british+aspirated+t&source=bl&ots=VvkVPqb4tz&sig=nmEsSUSrcJgeljqRSgnnKmqROtY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=52v8UN3LHZDltQbQoIHICw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=british%20aspirated%20t&f=false What you describe is typical for American pronunciation. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 20 '13 at 22:21
  • @tchrist, and your observation is based on ...? Can we see your spectrograms? – Alex B. Jan 20 '13 at 23:42
  • @AlexB. I’m not sure which observation you mean, but I would love some spectrograms; fee free to provide. :) My observation — and question — is that the t in a few words like proton comes out aspirated as though it were in a stressed syllable onset, not an unstressed one. The link to Brian Cox on YouTube at 8:43 shows him doing the same thing, so I really wish people would stop ranting about this being something they don’t do in the UK and poopooing it as a mere American phenomenon. – tchrist Jan 21 '13 at 08:48
  • 5
    Is this behavior all that anomalous? Don't the words protein and eighteen do the same thing? Their second syllable has secondary stress (at least in AmE), which means the vowel doesn't get reduced and the t is aspirated. – Peter Shor Jan 21 '13 at 12:58
  • I wonder whether the stress on the first syllable of two-syllable words like "proton" is induced somehow by some characteristic of the vowel in that syllable. If that were the case, then we might say that words like "proton" are actually have main stress on the second syllable -- which could account for the aspiration of /t/ between syllables -- but acquire stress on the first syllable. What might be conditioning the acquisition of stress? Perhaps it's vowel tenseness? – jyc23 Jan 21 '13 at 21:12
  • 1
    Should I realise now that pho-ton is not actually the name of a Vietnamese-style vegetable soup? – Blessed Geek Jan 21 '13 at 22:11
  • @tchrist, "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)." How do you know this? Is it purely impressionistic? – Alex B. Jan 24 '13 at 20:18
  • 1
    Professor Wells summed it up pretty well "It is unfortunately the case that English aspiration is not a matter of all or nothing. In some positions voiceless plosives may have a certain amount of aspiration, but not enough to call them fully aspirated. The VOT in such cases is intermediate between that of “aspirated” voiceless plosives and that of “unaspirated” ones." http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/vot-is-more.html?m=1 – Alex B. Jan 25 '13 at 04:03
  • 2
    Phonetics is not the same as phonology. Phonology is like gun control laws; Phonetics is like the NRA. – John Lawler Jan 25 '13 at 18:29
  • Regarding your examples: in my experience, canton has an unaspirated (like Milton, wanton, tartan, button), and Briton has an aspirated (like futon, lepton, Motown); also, while hadron, protein, baryon, and genome lack unstressed-syllable-vowel reduction by themselves, the unstressed vowel does reduce normally in, e.g., hadronization, proteinoplast, baryogenesis, genomics... – Vikki Jan 29 '22 at 02:40

4 Answers4

5

Actually, it is the suffix -on that causes the secondary stress to happen in most situations, like when it is added after a consonant.

This phenomenon is very common in AmE. But not the case in BrE: OBED and many other British dictionaries show otherwise (no secondary stress). [ Though many British physicists still stress the word in a way that gives secondary stress on the second syllable.]

OE suggests that "on" made its first appearance in the early 19th century in atomic physics:

ion (n.) 1834 [interestedly I've heard people pronounce it two ways: ˈaɪən and ˈaɪˌɑn]

introduced by English physicist and chemist Michael Faraday (suggested by the Rev. William Whewell, English polymath), coined from Greek ion, neuter prp. of ienai "go," from PIE root *ei- "to go, to walk".

So called because ions move toward the electrode of opposite charge.

It was not until the late 19th century that it is used as a suffix.

In 1894, Stoney coined the term electron to describe these elementary charges, saying, "... an estimate was made of the actual amount of this most remarkable fundamental unit of electricity, for which I have since ventured to suggest the name electron". The word electron is a combination of the word electric(icity) and the Greek suffix "tron", meaning roughly 'the means by which it is done'. The suffix -on which is now used to designate other subatomic particles, such as a proton or neutron, is in turn derived from electron.

In the 20th century, it becomes a fashion to use it for coining new terms not only in physics:

proton is coined in 1920 {it was used earlier in embryology (1893) at a translation of German anlage},

neutron [ˈn(j)uˌtrɑn] is coined in 1921,

photon (a particle-like package of light) is coined in 1926,

positron [ˈpɑzəˌtrɑn] (the antiparticle of electron) is coined in 1933,

negatron [ˈnɛɡəˌtrɑn] (the antiparticle of proton) is coined around 1933,

fermion [ˈfɜrmiˌɑn] (any particle that follows the Pauli exclusion principle) and

boson [ˈboʊsˌɑn] (any particles that don't follow the exclusion principle) are coined in the mid 20th century

[A famous example of boson would be the higgs boson which may help us to gain a
deeper insight into dark matter and dark energy, recently discovered by CERN (though it is not exactly the higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model)]

lepton (any particle that does not undergo strong interactions but follows the exclusion principle E.g. electron) is coined in 1948

muon [ˈmjuˌɑn] (an unstable, negatively charged lepton) is coined in the mid 20th century

gluon [ˈgluˌɑn'] (an exchange particle responsible for strong interaction) is coined in the mid 20th century

but also in other branches of science:

interferon [ˌɪntərˈfirˌɑn] Biochemistry

a protein released by animal cells, usually in response to the entry of a virus, that has >the property of inhibiting virus replication.

1957, coined in English, so called because it "interferes" with the reduplication of viruses. From interfere + subatomic particle suffix -on.

codon [ˈkoʊˌdɑn] Biochemistry

a sequence of three nucleotides that together form a unit of genetic code in a DNA or RNA >molecule.

1962, from code (n.) + -on.

operon [ˈɑpəˌrɑn] Biology

a unit made up of linked genes that is thought to regulate other genes responsible for >protein synthesis.

1960s: from French opérer ‘to effect, work’ + -on.

radon [ˈreɪˌdɑn] Chemistry

the chemical element of atomic number 86, a rare radioactive gas belonging to the noble gas series.

*1918, from radium (q.v.) + -on suffix of inert gases. *

A very famous physicist, Richard Feynman, even used the prefix -on to make up his own word, "parton" when he explained a seemingly-complex concept. And thus you can tell at that time the prefix -on was pretty well-used in the science community.

Notes: Not all 19th & 20th century scientific terms ending with "on" make use of the prefix "-on". One example would be ion as mentioned above, and here is another example

neuron [ˈn(j)ʊˌrɑn]

"a nerve cell with appendages," 1891, from German Neuron, from Greek neuron (see neuro-). Used earlier (1884) for "the spinal cord and brain."

Both the suffix -on and terms that exhibit secondary stress, such as neuron, ion, come from Greeks words.

So you are right, the Greeks are behind this.

Community
  • 1
  • You don't address why the popular British pronunciation does not stress the last syllable. If the Greeks were behind it, then I think the Brits would have followed suit. See Brit.: /ˈnjʊərɒn/ vs. U.S.: /ˈn(j)ʊˌrɑn/. I think you are closer with the French roots, which thusly drove the dialect per my answer. – New Alexandria Jan 20 '13 at 20:43
  • @Arch You know, there might be something about ion. It is an odd word, since it has two syllables. Similarly with neon, which also resists diphthongization. The -on particle seems a strong one, somehow. – tchrist Jan 20 '13 at 20:45
  • 1
    @NewAlexandria You have to be careful there. Some people analyze any English syllable with an unreduced vowel as having at least some sort of stress, since unstressed syllables are supposed to reduce in English. If it were a schwa, then I would agree than it is unstressed, but as it has the CLOTH vowel, I wonder. Perhaps a better marker is the aspiration on the t at the onset of the “unstressed” syllables, which is indeed why I chose the examples I did. – tchrist Jan 20 '13 at 20:48
  • @tchrist I'm mostly arguing for French-dialectic influence in these pronunciation, since the British is absent of the stressing you've raised in the OP. @arch also mentions the French connection, though his answer presents only US English pronunciations. See the Brit. /ˈʌɪən/, /ˈʌɪɒn/ vs. U.S.: /ˈaɪən/, /ˈaɪˌɑn/ – New Alexandria Jan 20 '13 at 20:57
  • 1
    @tchrist yeah. I've watched many lectures (on Internent) and the professors always pronounce the particles with the secondary stress. –  Jan 20 '13 at 21:03
  • @NewAlexandria Yes I find that pretty weird too.. I think BrE follows the tradition more (like some pronunciation rules or something [I don't really know as I haven't gotten the time to study that]) while AmE just pronounces it as how it sounds in Greek. I'm not sure about the French influence though. Maybe there is connection. –  Jan 20 '13 at 21:08
  • @Arch Were any of these lectures by chance given by speakers originally from Britain or Ireland? – tchrist Jan 20 '13 at 21:16
  • @tchrist I don't think so. Many are by Leonard Susskind and others I've forgotten who the lecturers are. –  Jan 20 '13 at 21:20
  • 1
    @Arch I think it behoves us to find one. That would settle the matter. Surely there must be something by Dawkins we can listen to. – tchrist Jan 20 '13 at 21:36
  • @tchrist Sure! Dawkins talks more on biology so I couldn't find one by him yet. Here is a BBC programme by Brain Cox and it sounds like he has kinda stressed it but I am not very sure. (I'm not used to the British Accent). So you should have a look. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZhZYtbPnag He started mentioning proton, neutron and electron at 08:43. –  Jan 21 '13 at 06:56
  • 1
    @Arch Good find: I like Brian Cox. And you’re right, he definitely sounds like he is stressing the word proton in a way that gives secondary stress on the second syllable. It is not reducing, and it is aspirated. Strikes me as pretty clear confirmation. – tchrist Jan 21 '13 at 08:42
  • @tchrist That's great. At first I thought I'd mistaken it as all British dictionaries suggest that there is no secondary stress but the aspiration can be heard. –  Jan 21 '13 at 09:02
  • Just so you know, the Community Wiki status of your posting, which happened because of it having been edited a lot, has no effect one way or the other on bounty awards. It would still go to you as the owner of the original revision. This is unlike how voting now works, where a CW post’s votes no longer affect your reputation. – tchrist Jan 21 '13 at 09:04
  • Oh.. I shouldn't have edited it so many times. Is it possible to remove the Wiki status and recover the voting system? –  Jan 21 '13 at 09:11
  • @Arch You could perhaps try flagging it to beg a moderator’s indulgence and have them revert it back to a regular posting if they would be so inclined. However, I do not know how often this actually happens, or whether they have any formal or informal criteria that they use might have at their disposal to help them make — or perhaps more importantly, justify — that decision. I have seen it happen, although not too often. So I do not know whether they would look upon your petition kindly or not. You probably just have to convince them. – tchrist Jan 21 '13 at 09:21
  • @tchrist Thanks! I've just sent a request. Hope they will help me and revert it back.. –  Jan 21 '13 at 09:39
  • @tchrist Awesome! It has been reverted back! –  Jan 21 '13 at 09:50
3

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.

Alex B.
  • 4,210
2

You are correct in your guess about Greek. The first "-ton" (in relation to particle physics) was the proton. Ernest Rutherford named the proton from the Greek πρῶτον, meaning "first".

Incidentally, Rutherford also had William Prout in mind when he named the proton and even suggested that one of two names be used: protons or proutons. Prout was the first person to theorize a fundamental particle of matter, which he referred to as a protyle.

As particle physics evolved, further discovered particles were named in a similar fashion. Photons are the elementary particles of light, and were named "φῶς + ton". Most other elementary particles are named either for Greek words + "on" or "ton", or else after various physicists who had a hand in their discovery/description with "on" tacked on the end to indicate that it is a subatomic particle.

I also think your speculation about them being new words likely has something to do with their pronunciation. Proton began appearing in science literature in the 1920's. Every other subatomic particle name has been coined since then - these words are all less than 100 years old. They all originated after the invention of audio recordings, and none are used commonly enough to be changed by regional dialects.

Marcus_33
  • 5,981
  • 2
    Wilczek supposedly named the axion after a brand of bleach, on the basis that it sounded like a particle name. :) (I've heard him mention this at a talk, and I think you can check this article for confirmation.) – starwed Jan 16 '13 at 17:34
  • 4
    Great answer but I have to point out that ion (1834) is actually the word that influenced other physicists to name new discovered particles with the suffix -on [instead of "ton"]. Electron (1894) was later coined. After that then proton (1920) was coined. I study quantum mechanics and particle physics so I'm pretty sensitive to this :) –  Jan 20 '13 at 20:20
  • 1
    This answer only seems to cover US English. In UK English, there is no stress on the second syllable, and words like proton behave exactly as expected. – Rory Alsop Jan 20 '13 at 20:51
  • @RoryAlsop Are you claiming that UK speakers do *not* aspirate the t in proton? – tchrist Jan 20 '13 at 21:35
  • 1
    That makes no sense - what would the alternative be? Of course it is aspirated - it is a strongly defined t sound, as is the initial one. – Rory Alsop Jan 20 '13 at 22:08
  • 1
    Note also that the suffix/ending is -on, not -ton : the stem of Attic phôs "light" is phôt-, as can be seen in photograph, photovoltaic, photosynthesis.... Note that the stem was pha(e)- in other dialects than Attic (cf. Greek pharos, Phaethôn); it is related to Greek pha(i)n- "radiate, appear", as in English phaenomenon, phantastic... – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Jan 20 '13 at 23:23
  • The suffix -one -- as in "ketone", "acetone", also seems to induce the unexpected aspiration. – jyc23 Jan 21 '13 at 21:17
  • Confused UK native speaker here. I pronounce the t in photon/proton the same as the t in voting. –  Jan 24 '13 at 14:45
1

The OED acknowledges that the pronunciations differ between US and British usage:

  • Brit. /ˈprəʊtɒn/
  • U.S. /ˈproʊˌtɑn/

I will now speculate generously, but precisely ~~~

Words like proton rose in prevalence within the US populace during the race into the 'Atomic Age'. Texas, due to the wealth of oil tycoons and the geological coincidence of petroleum and heavy metals, was the hotbed of nuclear developments in the US.

Texas are known for their particular drawl. The drawl is of French origin, and in the US became know as Cajun. This French-speaking influence is the basis for much of what is known as the "Southern Dialect". Particularly, this dialect is known for emphasizing the second syllable:

"Cajuns are quite distinct. They tend to place emphasis on the second syllable of a word, when possible. They use French words and phrases frequently in everyday speech. The names of Cajun cities and people often end in the very French suffixes '-ieux' and '-eaux', pronounced like a short 'o' sound"

Those familiar with the French style of speaking know that such words mentioned above, though 'short' in the Cajun dialect, are often emphasized.

Emphasis is often used for words of increased value or meaning.

As such, it is no stretch to conclude that the word "proton" would have garnered this attention by Southern speakers in the region, many of whom were staking business interest in booming nuclear operations - whose core science was based around the activities of Protons and other subatomic particles.

New Alexandria
  • 3,879