"di?nt" (with glottal stop)

[Benjamin Zimmer]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:14:46 -0800, Arnold M. Zwicky
<zwicky at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>
>just a warning...  the spelling <di'nt> (or similar things) is often
>used to code a pronunciation in which the intervocalic voiced tap is
>simply deleted.  not the same thing as a pronunciation with an
>intervocalic glottalish bit.
>
>i suspect that ben zimmer's examples include some with an intervocalic
>glottal stop and some with no intervocalic consonant at all.  this is
>not to deny that some of them have glottal stops, possibly from a
>catchphrase.

At least as far as the catchphrase is concerned, the exaggerated
glottalization seems to require something along the lines of [dI?In?] or
[dI?En?] (with at least secondary stress on the second syllable), as
opposed to [dI?@n?] or [dI?n-?] (where [n-] represents syllabic [n]).  I
believe this is what the pronunciation spellings of "di-int" and "di-ent"
are supposed to represent.

Even when the intervocalic consonant remains a voiced tap, the vowel of
the second syllable in the stressed form of "didn't" often sounds like [I]
or [E] when spoken by young East Coasters.

--Ben Zimmer