What about the start and end points of the diphthongs? When I produce these words, the first part takes up a greater proportion of the vowel before -d- words than in -t- words (I have [d] and [t] here).

A Firthian approach would be to consider the whole 'piece' and its features: that would not focus on a phonemic contrast, but on the full set of ways the contrast is produced, allowing the phonology and morphology to talk to each other, of course.

Are there any differences in the durations of the diphthongs before the taps?

How about this one from Sociology in York? Patient choice in practice: translating research findings into training and national guidelines for medical students and practitioners results2021.ref.ac.uk/impact/ea621...

Don’t you think he’s re-parsing it as a simple word rather than a compound, analogous to metallurgy, nutalogy? And with it, a shift in primary stress. (Of course, all scripted, so made up and playful.)

Not only ‘not a word’ but also ‘non-speech’! (Now wondering what most of my research in the last 15 years or so is about.)

in your defence -- the metre of 'JEremy CORbin' is easier to chant than 'ZACK PoLANski'

Four syllables in Zack Polanski, five in Jeremy Corbin

Oops **named**. No one has banned languages or linguistics yet, but who knows….

New powers to further restrict protest are unnecessary, undermine our rights to freedom of expression and ability to practice our religion freely.