Miss Jones is coming to lunch tomorrow. What am I to give her
/ˈmɪs ˎdʒəʊnz ɪz kʌmɪŋ tə lʌntʃ təˏmɒrəʊ. `-wɒt əm aɪ tə ɡɪv ə tu ˎiːt / 
What does she like?
/ˈwɒ(t) dəz ʃi ˋlaɪk?/ 
That’s not the question, really. She has all these
/(ða)ts nɒt ðə `kwestʃən ˎˏrɪəli. ʃi az ɔːl
ðiːz ˏdredfl `alədʒiz./ 
So I’m terrified of giving her something
bring her out in spots.
/səʊ aɪm `terəfaɪd | əv ɡɪvɪŋ hɜː ˏsʌmθɪŋ | ðətl
ˈbrɪŋ ər aʊt ɪn `spɒts. / 
What can she eat?
/wɒt ˋkan ʃi iːt?/ 
Well, I imagine steak doesn’t disagree with her.
/`ˏwel | aɪ mædʒɪn `steɪk dʌznt dɪsəˏɡriː wɪð hə. 
But I believe she comes out in a rash if she touches onions.
bət aɪ bəˈliːv | ʃi ˈkʌmz aʊt ɪn ə `raʃ ɪf ʃi tʌtʃɪz
For goodness sake! Ring up her house and ask them.
/fə ˈɡʊdnəs `seɪk. ˈrɪŋ ʌp ə `haʊs ən `ɑːsk ðəm./ 
There're some interesting elisions in this text the product of
readers’ successfully adopting a natural quite brisk tempo.
At a slower more deliberate pace these omissions no doubt wdntve
happened. The first is the probably complete loss of the /t/ normally
present at the end of the word “What” that begins
line 2. The second is at the word “That's” at the
start of line 3 which begins with such a realistically blurred casual
articulation that it might equally have been
“It's”. In the same line there's complete loss of
/h/ from the word “has”. At this brisk pace it
sounds perfectly natural but if slower wd sound like an uneducated
This is a notable contrast with General American pronunciation
where there is no sanction against omitting /h/ from have, has or had
as main verbs (non-auxiliaries) — a fact I've not noticed
recorded in any description of American English phonetics.
Aphesis /`æfəsɪs/, the loss of the initial sound of a word,
is a well known linguistic process seen in the replacement of esquire
by squire etc. This happens to the word imagine very frequently when I
precedes it but is of doubtfully acceptable usage in most other
contexts and understandably not taken notice of by the pronouncing
It's often rightly remarked that there's not just one GB (or
a number of similar varieties. Among the distinguishing characteristics
of these different varieties are their treatments of words ending in -y
and corresponding plurals in -ies. Older and/or posher people tend to
end such words using /ɪ/; younger and/or less socially conspicuous
people tend to favour /i/. This latter group took over the mainstream
from the former during the middle of the twentieth century. Another
"halfway" group favours /ɪ/ for -ies but /i/ (or rarely /iː/) for -y. A
still relatively small group favours the rhythmically strong /iː/: it
was their increasing emergence that strengthened the hand of those who
advocated recognising rhythmically weak /i/ in dictionaries from about
1978 onwards — something which became fully accepted only
when John Wells in effect welcomed it into his LPD in 1990. It had
previously been very common for centuries but unrecorded by most
phonetic observers. See my article at 3.2 on this website.
The varieties can't be ascribed to distinct social or regional
age groupings within GB. The split between one type and another can be
heard even within the same family. Perhaps the most famous pair of
brothers in British broadcasting are called Dimbleby. They went to the
same senior school. One is only six years older than the other and
regularly ends his name with /-ɪ/: the other doesn't.
The motive for sound change is very often the aspiration
speech". This development was obviously in that category: it was much
in evidence in posh girls' schools. People may vacillate and fudge of
course but our female speaker in this piece clearly favours the more
modern style. She hasn't got a clear /ɪ/ at
“really” or “allergies”, tho
she did have one at “holiday” in People Speaking 3
(but see what we said about that.)