3 ms·

Thanks for the cool IPA! I think that seems totally reasonable that the word boundary itself is phonetic, as such it could be intentionally accentuated (as a lo

by tombh 5y ago

Thanks for the cool IPA! I think that seems totally reasonable that the word boundary itself is phonetic, as such it could be intentionally accentuated (as a longer than usual pause) to clarify. Oh wait but isn't [pʰ] word-initial only anyway? So in a way it has an implicit word boundary. BTW does your accent not aspirate "pour"? So you don't do /ma͡is pʰoː/?

bradrn 5y ago
> I think that seems totally reasonable that the word boundary itself is phonetic, as such it could be intentionally accentuated That’s not what I mean. By ‘the word boundary is phonemic’ [not ‘phonetic’!], I mean that the word boundary can be transcribed on the phonemic level, and is thus allowed to influence the phonetic realisation of other phonemes. > BTW does your accent not aspirate "pour"? So you don't do /ma͡is pʰoː/? No, it does: [mɑ͡ispʰoː].