There’s always slight changes that happen when different consonants combine. (And there’s even variation for one individual who might pronounce the same word differently in different phonological contexts.) But /ʧ/, which is actually two sounds, is no more voiced than /t/. I think that /ʧr/ and /tr/ end up sounding the same because of the the aspiration of the /t/ assimilating with the /ʃ/ in anticipation of the /r/. A person could consciously articulate on the aveloar ridge differently if he wanted to from one to the other, but the difference is slight and not consistent.
But when that happens, just because you decide to represent it by changing the letters on paper doesn’t mean it’s suddenly a distinct pronunciation. That’s a difference that YOU (or some one else) created by choosing those letters. It’s like writing hawt instead of hot: the different letters reflect a difference in the perception of the speaker more than anything.
Interestingly, I can do that, too, although I wouldn’t necessarily call what comes out a [t] sound, as there’s some distortion from my teeth.
My point is that, people saying that “chruck” and “truck” are made the same way must do the “ch” sound without putting their teeth together. (Or, I guess, always put their teeth together for the [t] sound.) This is something I can do, but it’s not the way I usually make that sound.
In fact, I seem to remember from my music diction classes that the /ʃ/ sound can be made in two different ways, one more dental (the one I described), the other more palatal (made like a more forward version of .) And all the English “ch” is is an affricate (combination) of that with the /t/ sound. So it makes sense that different people might have a different way to make the “ch” or /͡tʃ/ sounds.
Hmm. Teeth together as in touching? I don’t put my teeth together for either of those sounds. Analyzing both sounds and the shape of my mouth, teeth position seems to be the same, slightly apart. One difference, though, is my mouth seems to pucker in a bit for the “ch” sound.
The long/short macron/breve system was not really a phonetic system. It was designed to teach seven-year-olds how to read. It was never intended to reflect actual phonetics.
By the time you get the point where you are comparing the speech of two people, that system doesn’t do anything. It’s not based on actual phonetic science and it doesn’t represent actual speech.
I think that everyone who knows anything about phonetics knows the difference between voice and unvoiced consonants. Beyond that, I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
I mean that the motions made with my speaking parts (tongue, lips, jaw, etc.) when pronouncing tr as in truck are the same as when saying dr as in drug. However, the difference between the two is that sound is made in my larynx when saying the dr, but no sound comes from my larynx when saying tr.
I will add that my way of saying tr in all words such as tree, train, and trivial sounds wholly unlike chr.
I personally say “drug” like “jrug.” I can “clear up” both the “tr” and “dr” sounds if I try, but, for me, it’s natural to say “tr” like “chr” and “dr” like “jr.” There literally is no difference to how I pronounce “truck” and “chruck,” but I believe this is a feature of my Chicago accent. Even more noticeable is “str,” which I turn in “shch” so “street” becomes “shtreet” or “shchreet.” That one definitely pegs me from this area.
No, I do not believe everyone says it the same way I do. However, others have alleged, either in this thread or the one with the poll, that I most certainly pronounce tr as chr because everyone does, according to them. I most certainly do not.
It’s a question of odds. The fact is that most Americans do pronounce it that way, and the fact is that they often don’t realize it. And the fact is that people often mistakenly make the assertions that you are making. Unless we actually hear you speaking, we can’t know for sure. It’s no big deal to us if it turns out you’re right, but the odds are that you’re wrong