From: "Kristian Jensen" <[log in to unmask]> > Muke Tever wrote: > > >===== Original Message From Constructed Languages List > > >Actually the <d> in "bad" is not so much "half-voiced" as it is > > >weakly articulated. Its important to remember that another important > > >perceptual cue is _articulatory strength_. English /p t k/ are fortis, > > >while /b d g/ are lenis. This is most evident in syllable-final > > >position. In some dialects, both series of stops are completely voiceless > > >in syllable-final position. In these dialects, the perceptual cue lies in > > >the length of the preceding sound. E.g. /b&d/ "bad" vs /b&t/ "bat" is > > >[b&:t] vs [b&t] respectively (where [&:] is suppose to be half-length, > > >not full-length). > > > > I would generally have something like [b&?] for "bat", so the difference there > > would be POA instead of voicing. > > Ahem! Right! <d> was a bad example. > > Try "bag" vs "back" > [b&:g] vs [b&k]. > Or "lab" vs "lap" > [l&:b] vs [l&p]. I should probably mention that I would glottalize all these final voiceless stops, although it's only the /t/ that ever does so to the point of its own disappearance. *Muke!