On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 21:40:49 +0100 Paul Bennett <[log in to unmask]> writes: > [?_t] (which I originally wrote as ['_t]) is the sound I'd have said=20 > was used > here in SE England. I (and others) produce glottal sounds for both=20 > /t/ and /k/. > In carefull colloquial speech (???) I can differentiate between the=20 > three sounds > [?] (purely glottal, in "uh-oh"), [?_k] (back of tongue raised, in=20 > "wake up") > and [?_t] (tip of tongue in alveolar position, in "water"). =20 > Nevertheless, the > ponetic influence of the _k and _t are very small, but discernable. =20 > Ooh, blast and darn! [?_k] might actually be [k=AC] (velar stop with=20 > no audible > release), and [?_t] might be [?_4]. > ---=20 > Pb That's the same identification problem i have with the Rokbeigalmki mid-word-syllable-final glottal stop which breaks between a vowel and a semivowel so that they don't diphthongize. _hawa_ - /ha?wa/ - "what" vs. _*haowa_ - /hawwa/ vs. _*haoa_ - /haw?a/ In the word _hawa_ the front of my tongue lifts up and slightly backwards during the glottal stop, and it sounds like it has some kind of /t/ quality to it. -Stephen (Steg) "...eze-dal wa'amsh ailz, yu i yu..." ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.