1 « 26 27 28 29 30 31 
Hamm's Britishly articulated terminal -t's in words like "cat" were, I assume, a matter of speaking for the microphone

I think you're right.
Michael Hamm Since mid-September of 2003, AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis I've been erasing too much UBE. (Email Removed) Of a reply, then, if you have been cheated, http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ Likely your mail's by mistake been deleted.
I previously wrote, in part:
It's at http://www.math.wustl.edu/~msh210/recording.html

I often pronounce as the voiced labiodental approximant. (I'd consider that a speech defect rather than an accent.) Can anyone hear it in the recording?

I've been paying more attention to my s and Hebrew s since I posted the above, and think:
1. Most of my s are simultaneous {alveolar or retroflex} andlabiodental approximants. (How would one transcribe that?) But I think some are only alv. or rfx., and a very few only lbd.
2. Most of my s, when I'm not speaking with an Israeli accent, aresimultaneous {alv. or rfx.} and lbd. aprs., or just lbd. But I think a very few are just alv. or rfx.

3. My s, when I'm speaking with an Israeli accent (that is, myversion of one; i.e., when I speak modern conversational Hebrew, as distinct from when I pray or mention Hebrew words in my English sentences), are back aprs. I think they're uvular, maybe velar.

Fwiw.
Michael Hamm Since mid-September of 2003, AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis I've been erasing too much UBE. (Email Removed) Of a reply, then, if you have been cheated, http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ Likely your mail's by mistake been deleted.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
I previously wrote, in part:
Hamm's Britishly articulated terminal -t's in words like "cat" were, I assume, a matter of speaking for the microphone

I think you're right.

or of reciting, anyway. The "Ferdinand" sentence was quite an unnatural one for me to say.
Actually, I think the second "cat" is the only word in which I did that.
Michael Hamm Since mid-September of 2003, AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis I've been erasing too much UBE. (Email Removed) Of a reply, then, if you have been cheated,
http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ Likely your mail's by mistake been deleted.
I previously wrote, in part:

I often pronounce as the voiced labiodental approximant.

I'm sorry, I just can't help reacting to such language is that something like cunnilingus while saying "r" and nibbling very gently on the general area? Stimulating, I'm sure.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
1. Most of my s are simultaneous {alveolar or retroflex} and labiodental approximants. (How would one transcribe that?)

IPA has a labiodental approximant as a cursive . So the dual articulation you describe would be written as a cursive and an joined by a tie arc.
Hm. I thought cursive was a bilabial approximant. IPA doesn't give a way to denote a bilabial approximant, however. I wonder why.

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
1. Most of my s are simultaneous {alveolar or retroflex} and labiodental approximants. (How would one transcribe that?)

IPA has a labiodental approximant as a cursive . So the dual articulation you describe would be written as a ... cursive was a bilabial approximant. IPA doesn't give a way to denote a bilabial approximant, however. I wonder why.

I just love it when you guys talk dirty.
Never mind ...

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Aaron J. Dinkin (Email Removed) wrote, in part:
simultaneous {alveolar or retroflex} and labiodental approximants. (How would one transcribe that?)

IPA has a labiodental approximant as a cursive . So the dual articulation you describe would be written as a cursive and an joined by a tie arc.

And in ASCII IPA? EK has (labiovelar) as a feature for some sounds, and uses, e.g., /t/ to indicate the voiceless lbv stop. That's good and well (1) for labiovelar, but what about other 'tied' symbols? Perhaps we should introduce soft (round) parentheses into ASCII IPA, so that 'tied' symbols would be bound together within parentheses. Thus, the sound I describe above would be transcribed /(r.r)/ or /(rr)/, and simultaneous /S/ and /x/ (which I seem to recall there's a symbol for in IPA, although I don't have a table handy, but for which there's no symbol, if I'm not mistaken, in ASCII IPA) would be transcribed /(Sx)/ (or, equivalently, /(xS)/).

This would then lead to a choice for /t/ one could transcribe it that way or as /(pk)/ or as /(kp)/. The feature would be useless (2), then, and could eventaully be dropped.

(1) Whatever that means.
(2) The funny thing is, though, that IPA uses symbols for some simultanous-type sounds. The simultaneous /S/ and /x/ that I mention above is one example, and, of course, /w/ is another. It doesn't use a tie for these. Perhaps those who know phonetics can explain why; I cannot. If there's a good reason, fine. Otherwise, is useless with the introduction of parentheses.
Michael Hamm
http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/