Re: Emphasis allophonies?

Raymond A. Brown wrote:
>At 2:19 pm -0500 16/9/99, Eric Christopherson wrote:
>[snip]
>>I've noticed that when people emphasize English words which use [4]
>>(alveolar tap) or [d] for /t/, they sometimes use [t] (as in <little>=
,
>>usually ["lIdl=3D] but emphasized ["lItl=3D]).
>
>To which at 8:38 pm +0100 16/9/99, Paul Bennett replied:
>>I'd say that's a very USAcentric notion, or at least North-America-ce=
ntric.
>
>So would I   :)
>
>Here in SE England the usual pronunciation is [lI?l=3D] or, especially=
 in the
>London area, [lI?w] - whether the word is emphasized or not.
>
>Ray.
[?_t] (which I originally wrote as ['_t]) is the sound I'd have said wa=
s used
here in SE England.  I (and others) produce glottal sounds for both /t/=
 and /k/.
In carefull colloquial speech (???) I can differentiate between the thr=
ee sounds
[?] (purely glottal, in "uh-oh"), [?_k] (back of tongue raised, in "wak=
e up")
and [?_t] (tip of tongue in alveolar position, in "water").  Neverthele=
ss, the
ponetic influence of the _k and _t are very small, but discernable.

Ooh, blast and darn! [?_k] might actually be [k=AC] (velar stop with no=
 audible
release), and [?_t] might be [?_4].




---

Pb



"Every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my b=
rain!" --
      Homer Simpson





=


*************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the
sender. This footnote also confirms that this email message
has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
*************************************************************