> At 10:02 am -0500 28/11/00, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 03:34:06PM +0100, daniel andreasson wrote:
>>> Teoh wrote:
>>>> I'll let better-clued list members answer that, but I'd like
>>>> to say that symmetry in languages is not 100%. For example,
>>>> English has [h] but no other glottals (at least not that I'm
>>>> aware of).
>>> I'm pre??y sure Bri?ish English has a glo??al stop. :-)
>> [snip]
>>
>> Hmm, that's strange. AFAIK, British English tends to *emphasize* the
/t/'s
>> -- [brIt<h>iS h&s glot<h>:@l st<h>Ops].
> Oh yes? What British English have you been listening too?
*The* British I know do emphasise the [t] and don't produce glottal stops,
though I'm quite sure that they wouldn't aspirate the [t] in <stops>. The
only occurance of [?] I've heard of was "uh-oh" [?&?@U]... :)
>> I thought it was American that's
>> pronouncing /t/ as [?] :-)
> Alas, no :=(
In the books they write that Americans (most of them) pronounce /t/ as [D]
(a tap/flap) following a stressed syllable e.g. "atom", "water", "writer"
would then be pronounced the same as "rider". In faster speech that [D]
would reduce to a [?] (then "writer" would again be differnet from "rider")
:->
But I've never recognised that. But all Americans I know do use [D] in the
examples above.
Colloqial varieties are always different... of no use argueing here
Regards
--Sven