Giot busted

[svetlana14]

Could you please listen to the recording attached below. My question/problem area relates to the word "busted". I hear "busted" in the fast speech as something like "bus-ef" so that "t" is dropped and "ed" gets "ef" or sometimes disappears at all blending with “f” in the following “for” (if ones plays back over and over again). I have tried to listen to the pronunciation of other American speakers and they pronounced "t" in “busted” pretty clear for me. Is it a normal practice for the fast and connected speech of American pronunciation for dropping “ts” in such or similar cases Thank you.

 

[GoesStation]

He says Yeah. Got busted for possession. Half an ounce. It's very clear to my American ears, and he's not speaking very fast. In fact, he's speaking slowly and carefully. He pronounces every phoneme in busted.

He does leave out a few words: I and something like It was.

 

[jutfrank]

I hear it a little differently from GoesStation.

I'm not sure if he does articulate the /t/ in busted. At least, it isn't fully realised with a stop, I don't think. It's pretty common among some American speakers to do this.

I also think he is uttering the sentence as if the preposition of is there in place (possession of half an ounce) although it's undetectable. I mean, he's uttering a single utterance rather than two disjointed utterances, as GS has it transcribed.

The /f/ sound that you hear at the end of busted is the effect of catenation from the first sound of the following for.

 

[GoesStation]

I'm certain that he says Possession. Half an ounce, because it's a logical statement. It's an elision of a longer statement like I got busted for the crime of marijuana possession. They charged me with possessing half an ounce.

I hear all the sounds in busted. As an American, he naturally doesn't articulate a stop in the intersyllabic /t/.

 

[probus]

I'm not sure if he does articulate the /t/ in busted. At least, it isn't fully realised with a stop, I don't think. It's pretty common among some American speakers to do this.

It's very common among us Canadians too. I've always felt that on the whole, BrE speakers enunciate more clearly than we AmE speakers.

 

[svetlana14]

[FONT=&quot]Thank you again for your comments of yesterday. Could you please explain to me the following. When you note that /t/ isn’t fully realised with a stop, do you mean that it is not realised (as a full stop is not considered to be a full realisation) or whether it is not realised with a stop so that you do not hear a stop T in this sentence? Many thanks. [/FONT]

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Could you please listen to the recording attached below. My question/problem area relates to the word "busted". I hear "busted" in the fast speech as something like "bus-ef" so that "t" is dropped and "ed" gets "ef" or sometimes disappears at all blending with “f” in the following “for” (if ones plays back over and over again). I have tried to listen to the pronunciation of other American speakers and they pronounced "t" in “busted” pretty clear for me. Is it a normal practice for the fast and connected speech of American pronunciation for dropping “ts” in such or similar cases Thank you.

Although the letters do blend together, I can hear the T and D in busted. Maybe it's just because I've spent a lifetime listening to Americans.

Like lots of other English speakers, many Americans rush their words together. This "busted" is much more clearly enunciated than the "Are you out of your mind?" that you posted here recently.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . I also think he is uttering the sentence as if the preposition of is there in place (possession of half an ounce) although it's undetectable. I mean, he's uttering a single utterance rather than two disjointed utterances, as GS has it transcribed. . . .

I can't tell whether he says "of" there, either. I've listened to it three times and still can't decide whether it's there or not.

But, Svetlana, rest assured that the meaning is the same either way.