Re: THEORY: Ray on ambisyllabicity

At 6:05 pm -0400 17/10/00, John Cowan wrote:
[....]
>
>It seems to me that there isn't any possible ambisyllabicity that can't
>be accounted for as a covert gemination.
What I'm finding difficult is to understand what "covert gemination" or
"gemination in disguise" can actually mean.  To me the terms seem
meaningless, i.e. to my simple mind either a consonant is geminate or it
ain't.  It's quite clear to me, e.g. when I hear Welsh _hapus_ pronounced,
that the medial /p/ is geminate.  The /p/ in English _happy_ is not
geminate.

I can understand the argument of those who maintain that the /p/ in English
_happy_ is ambisyllabic.  But at present I neither accept nor reject the
theory.

Ray.

=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================