--- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "Jean-Paul G. POTET" <potetjp@w...>
wrote:

> "Finally, there is the infamous English word 'Aztec'. The

opposition of

> /zt/ and /st/ remains." Richard WORDINGHAM, ENGLAND
>
> In the normal procedure one has to contrast two words. Is there

such a word

> as <astec / asteck / etc.> that can be contrasted with <Aztec>?
> I am pretty sure a fairly large number of native speakers of

English

> pronounce it ['?aes tek], and few notice the difference.
> On the other hand I think that those who pronounce it properly
> (unconsciously) treat it as a compound : az + tek, and align its
> pronunciation rule on that of such compounds : backlash, hairdo

etc.

> My opinion is that such compounds are run on two trochaic feet -

word stress

> being generally on the first mora of the first item - as opposed

to base +

> suffix derivatives that are run on a single trochaic foot, e.g.

bullock,

> speaker etc.

The nearest contrast I can find is "pitch mastic" (not sure of the
spelling) which consists of three feet. "Plastic" consists of just
one foot. I have [æ] (or is it [a]?) in all these words. (You may
need to set the encoding to Western European (ISO or Windows) to
view this properly, but I loathe the SAMPA notation {.) The lack of
voicing assimilation does seem to depend on some sort of boundary -
metric or morphemic.

Richard.