Re: Probability of Article Replacement?

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:49:56 -0000, And Rosta <a.rosta@...> wrote:

>Nik:
>> Andrew Smith wrote:
>> > To take the first two, the phonetics is spot on, so "I'm going to the
pub"
>> > is [amgOIn?pUb]
>>
>> Is that a typo, or is it really an *un*aspirated voiceless stop there?
>
>I don't know what Andrew's intentions were, but I think that the preceding
>glottal stop tends to suppress aspiration on the following plosive. I
>also suspect that the glottal stop can be omitted so long as the aspiration
>is suppressed. I'd need to check this with informants, but I am tentatively
>suggesting something like this:
> [Ol?t_haEm] = 'all the time'
> [Ol?taEm] = 'all the time'
> [OltaEm] = 'all the time'
> [Olt_haEm] = 'all time'
>
>Part of the reason I am tentative about this is that some northerners
>don't aspirate /p t k/ in the first place, so there are definitely
>some for whom the above paradigm is incorrect.
>
>--And.
I did leave off the aspiration on purpose, because it certainly seems much
reduced after a glottal stop, although whether it's completely unaspirated
I'm not sure.

Rather than And's tentative paradigm above, for me I _think_ the aspirated
and unaspirated variants are in free variation after a glottal stop, so the
first two are 'all the time' and the latter two 'all time'.

The original phenomenon And mentioned was _to_ being realised as [?@] - I
don't think it's a coincidence that this word-initial glottal stop
realisation only occurs with function words, never with lexical items like
'time' or 'town'.

Andrew