Re: Emphasis allophonies?

At 9:40 pm +0100 16/9/99, Paul Bennett wrote:
[snip]
>
>[?_t] (which I originally wrote as ['_t]) is the sound I'd have said was us=
ed
>here in SE England.  I (and others) produce glottal sounds for both /t/
>and /k/.
>In carefull colloquial speech (???) I can differentiate between the three
>sounds
>[?] (purely glottal, in "uh-oh"), [?_k] (back of tongue raised, in "wake up=
")
>and [?_t] (tip of tongue in alveolar position, in "water").  Nevertheless, =
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 aud=
ible
>release)
=2E...or it maybe [k?]

It might be - but when I a teenager - long years ago - I regularly met boys
from London who released voiceless plosives with a constriction of the
glottis, i.e. in effect with a glottal stop, where I used aspiration.  Then
there dialect, like many actual spoken southern British dialects, had no
/h/ or aspiration. Thus 'paper' ['peip?a] and 'soccer' ['sOk?a]; but [t]
simply assimilated  to [??], thus 'water' ['wO??a].   IIRC they came from
the East End around the Whitechapel Road area.  I suspect similar
pronunciations still obtain.

I now work in south west of greater London and intervocalic /k/ and /p/ are
still recognizable as /k/ and /p/ but intervocalic /t/ is simply [?] and,
in the pronunciation of most of my students, indistinguishable from the
glottal catch that many people make in the middle of 'ugh-oh!'

The [?] for intervocalic /t/ which seems to have pervaded much of southern
Brit English is, I assume, derived from the Cockney [??] <- [t?].

> and [?_t] might be [?_4].
I somehow doubt it.  Maybe you have the [??] I remember from my youth :)

Ray.