/kl/

I've noticed that I sometimes pronounce initial /kl/ with an affricate, something like [kx5] when it's emphatic, but I've heard some speakers who seem to use this all the time. In what dialects does this occur and what is its origin?

I also have a transitional sound there, which is especially noticeable when it's emphatic. In my case, I think the transitional sound is an alveolar lateral fricative: [kKl].

I highly doubt it has anything to do with their dialect. I've heard teachers overemphasize their k's: khlock. If it seems fairly consistent, it's probably just their idiolect.

Especially when speaking emphatically, I will at times have a transitional sound, with /kl/ being realized as something like [kxL\].

Does this occur in any other stop+/l/ sequences? It doesn't for me
play [p_hle]
blue [blu]
glue [glu]
I think my emphatic /kl/ might actually have a uvular fricative: [kX5]. The /l/ is much darker than it usually is pre-vocalically.
Something else I never noticed: the realisation of /l/ seems to affect which allophone of GOOSE I use. My normal pronunciation of /kl/ has a clearer /l/ and [}u] for GOOSE as is usual after coronals, while the [kX5] pronunciation has my back, monophthogal /u/.
clue [k_hl}u] or [kX5u]

I don't have a transitional sound in "blue" or "glue":

blue ["blu:]
glue ["glu:]

But I do have it in "play" (and for what it's worth, "Tlaxcala"):

play ["pKleI]
Tlaxcala [tKlA:"skA:l@]

>>I don't have a transitional sound in "blue" or "glue":

blue ["blu:]
glue ["glu:]<<

I likewise lack transitional sounds in these cases.

>>But I do have it in "play" (and for what it's worth, "Tlaxcala"):

play ["pKleI]
Tlaxcala [tKlA:"skA:l@] <<

I similarly sporadically realize onset /pl/ as [pxL\], but /tl/ does not really seem to undergo such insertion of [x] for me at all.

I seem to have it in 'Tlaxcala' [tK5aks"kal@], but that's barely an English word. I suspect that the [K] comes from an overlap between the aspiration of the stop and the lateral release into /l/. I'm still not sure about the [x] or [X] in /kl/. Here's my theory: /l/ is realized as [5] by assimilation to the preceeding velar, then the aspiration of the stop overlaps only with the back articulation and produces [x] or [X]. I'm not sure why this assimilation would be more likely with emphatic pronunciations though. I'm also not sure why 'Tlaxcala' should have a dark /l/.

Tlaxcala is supposed to be pronounced [tɬaːʃkala]. The "x" is a [ʃ].

That's true, but for the English pronunciation, all the dictionaries that I've seen say it has [s]. (We can also use "Tlingit", a tribe from Alaska and BC.)

>>I seem to have it in 'Tlaxcala' [tK5aks"kal@], but that's barely an English word. I suspect that the [K] comes from an overlap between the aspiration of the stop and the lateral release into /l/. I'm still not sure about the [x] or [X] in /kl/. Here's my theory: /l/ is realized as [5] by assimilation to the preceeding velar, then the aspiration of the stop overlaps only with the back articulation and produces [x] or [X]. I'm not sure why this assimilation would be more likely with emphatic pronunciations though. I'm also not sure why 'Tlaxcala' should have a dark /l/.<<

Of course, for me, [x] makes sense because my /l/ is always velar (and not even merely velarized).