--- On Sun, 2/26/12, Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
> On Feb 25, 2012, at 11:12 PM, Padraic
> Brown wrote:
> 
> > Right. Note that it's not the *stop* itself that is
> being extended for a
> > space of time, but the silence that follows the stop. 
> 
> Not so, at least in the case of voiced stops -- I was
> dissuaded from this point of view by a discussion on this
> very list a few years ago -- in a long voiced stop, the
> voicing continues for the length of the consonant, even if
> you're not moving your lips or tongue. IIUC, though,
> voiceless stops do not allow this possibility.
> 
> (In agreement with what I was told back then, I've found
> that it is much easier to hold [b:(:...)] than [g:(:...)];
> [d:(:...)] falls in between.

I can see where you're coming from here -- if I keep pushing air while
holding my mouth and tongue in the [b] position, I do get some kind of
indeterminate vocalism. But I also get puffy cheeks and a mouthful of
highly pressurised air that must either be released into some horrible
kind of spittle ejecting superplosive, or else escape with a violent
snort through the nose!

I'll accept that some sort of sound *is* produced under such 
circumstances, but I'm not yet all that convinced that what we're hearing
is a "long stop" so much as an obstructed vowel.

Now, what this line of discussion has led to is a wondering about using
such sounds (these horribly spittle ejecting superplosives with their
pre-onset pressure building obstructed vowels) as a distinct series of
consonants in parallel with the usual voiced, voiceless, aspirated. Will
have to find a spot for this in some conlang somewhere...

Kind of a neat series of sounds, if you ask me.

Padraic