Re: Romanized Orthography of My Conlang

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU]On
> Behalf Of Nik Taylor
> Sent: Monday, November 1, 1999 9:46 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG
> Subject: Re: Romanized Orthography of My Conlang
> Well, I remembered something: English has a special rule for
> syllabification, where intervocalic consonants go with the preceding
> vowel IF that vowel is stressed, which explains why "happy" is [h&pi]
> and not *[h&:p_hi], the allophonic shortening of the vowel and the
> unaspirated form of /p/ are due to the fact that the word is syllabified
> as /h&p.i/ rather than /h&.pi/ (also, /&/ normally can't occur in
> syllable-final position)
Is the /p/ merely non-aspirated, or is there no release as well? I remember
the discussion long ago about how English final unvoiced consonants (in some
dialects at least) seem to have no release -- I initially thought my
idiolect only did it with /t/, but it appears to hold true for my /p/ and
/k/ also, now that I think about it. So I would pronounce <hap> [h{p_}] (for
the X-SAMPA impaired, { is "ae ligature" and _} means "no audible release"),
but I can't tell if I pronounce <happy> [h{pi] or [h{p_}i]. While I'm on the
subject, I've also theorized that the so-called voiced t in words like
<little> might be [t_}], but I'm not sure.