2

Could we say that when saying the 'tr' in words like 'train', 'tram' etc, that the /t/ and /r/ often coalesce to make a sound which is more similar to 'tchr'?

I myself definitely do this, but I have not found it documented in any text books that I've read, tho' I'm sure I haven't read them all!

All thoughts/comments much appreciated.

Bob

PS. Apparently "Creating the new tag 'coalesence' requires at least '300 reputation." ...in case anyone is wondering why on earth I didn't tag this post properly.

Peter Shor
  • 88,407
Bob Holmes
  • 21
  • Although the question itself is slightly different, this is covered quite well in What is the IPA for "trade"?, which I would consider a duplicate. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 01 '15 at 15:30
  • 1
    The r assimilates to the t by becoming an obstruent. I don't understand why you would call this "coalescence". – Greg Lee Feb 01 '15 at 15:46
  • 1
    Thank you Janus, I couldn't find that post in my search and it was very useful.

    Greg, I believe coalescence is a type of assimilation.

     – Bob Holmes Feb 01 '15 at 16:02
  • Well, it may be, in someone's classification, but it's hardly standard. – John Lawler Feb 01 '15 at 16:20
  • 1
    While this isn't called "coalescence" by linguists, I hardly think that linguists should object when laymen use names that mean different things in plain English than in linguistics jargon. (On the other hand, I'm not convinced that creating a tag called "coalescence" would be useful.) – Peter Shor Feb 01 '15 at 16:30
  • 1
    I have heard English speakers who pronounce "tr" with a quite distinct "ch" sound embedded. This is not, in my opinion, "normal", and I've always associated it with having a slight speech impediment (since there seem to be other characteristic oddities in the speech), or, perhaps, not being exposed to "proper" English at a young age. (Admittedly, this "association" could be viewed as a prejudice of a sort, but let's not go there.) – Hot Licks Feb 01 '15 at 19:07
  • Thank you all for your feedback on this. On digesting the comments, I realised, to my great embarrassment (and shock) that something was fundamentally wrong with my understanding of 'coalescence', that I had assimilated a wider meaning of it beyond its definition. I have since looked it up (in both its linguistic and plain dictionary forms), and I think my belief that 't' and 'r' were coalescing was absolutely wrong since the occurrence of these two sounds together does not form ONE unit, but remains as three, still distinguishable units, 't', 'ch', and 'r' (with 'ch' not always present). – Bob Holmes Feb 02 '15 at 22:33

0 Answers0