> 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 ‘th

> 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].