This paper aims at describing the click accompaniments of |Gui, a little known Central Khoisan language, and presenting some new findings which may contribute to general phonetics as well as Khoisan linguistics. The phonetic features described here are based upon linguistic field research by the author into the |Gui language in the Xade area, Central Kalahari Game Reserve, Botswana, from August to December in 1992, from August to October in 1993 and from August to December in 1994.

In issue 24(1): 21–34 of the Journal of the International Phonetic Association, we reviewed the technique of dynamic electropalatography (EPG) (also known as dynamic palatography or palatometry) for recording information about the tongue's contact with the hard palate over time (Byrd 1994). The purpose of that note was to provide an introduction to interpreting palatograms, much in the same way that phonetics students learn to read spectrograms. In this brief follow-up, we will decipher and discuss the “mystery” palatogram presented as Sentence 2 in the original tutorial. The frame-by-frame data on this sentence occurred on pages 32 – 34 there. Readers should consult these pages to follow along with the discussion below. Examples of palatograms for a variety of sounds as produced by the same speaker were also included there.

While the history of interest in voice quality dates back at least as far as Henry Sweet (e.g. 1890), there was for many years little agreement on how to classify voice quality or how to transcribe it as part of a phonetic transcription. Indeed, there is not even agreement on precisely what the term covers in that it is often restricted to aspects of voice quality derived from vocal fold activity, rather than the fuller meaning which encompasses features derived from supralaryngeal settings of the articulators. Authors such as Nolan (1983) have used the phrase long-term quality as an alternative; however, in this article we will retain the traditional term but with a wide application to account for voice quality derived from airflow features, vocal fold activity, and supralaryngeal activity.

As the IPA chart is published in so many places, and is used also by non-phoneticians, I suggest that we should revise it rarely and, when it is revised, try to make only minimal changes in the chart. Nonetheless, I think that the 1993 revision of the chart resulting from the most recent Council vote (IPA 1993) is not ideal, and a few minor changes are needed. When the time comes, I suggest that the Council should discuss the following six proposals.