For yet another example, there's a soundchange posited erly in the history 
of Balto-Fennic where consonants lenite (t: > t, nt> nd, t > D etc.) if 1) 
suffix-initial and 2) preceded by an unstressed syllable. So that's two 
unusual conditioning factors in the same package. I get the impression its 
existence is considered a bit iffy, however.

I've also heard a few modern Finnish accents/dialects where /n/ is flapped 
to [4~] medially after an unstressed syllable.

(Mark Reed:)
>By [}] I assume you mean IPA [æ]? Unless you explicitly indicate that
>you're using unmodified X-SAMPA (or whatever), I think SOP on this
>list is to assume CXS, in which that sound is rendered as [&] and [}]
>has an entirely different meaning...

Shouldn't be much of a bother since [{ }] are not segments at all in CXS?

(Eric Christopherson:)
> > I've always been a little skeptical of the claim that the third one
> > is a tap/flap; in my dialect it sounds like /d/ and not very much
> > like the Spanish /4/ that I'm familiar with. Besides that, sometimes
> > I hear people who definitely *do* use [4], and it sounds odd to me.

That's probably the phonetic difference between a tap and a flap, then. 
AFAIK a tap is a single-contact trill while a flap is, well, a flap, and 
they do sound slightly different. I've seen the flap occasionally 
transcribed with a small capital D when wishing to differentiate. Z-SAMPA 
seems to use [d\].

Don't ask me which is the English [4] and which the Spanish, tho. I can't 
hear the difference myself.

John Vertical

Uutisista turhaan tietoon. Mitä ikinä etsitkin, MSN Search löytää hakemasi.