Re: THEORY: Ray on ambisyllabicity

Ray:
[...]
> As I said, I'm keeping an open mind on 'ambisyllabicity'.  At present, I
> find the ambisyllable analysis easier to swallow than ['h&p.i].
Yeah. We need to ask Dirk how he accounts for:

  Sal   [saw]
  Sally [sali]

in demotic SE Insular English, if /l/ isn't in an onset in "Sally".
Also:

  hoe          [h@w]
  holy         [h@wli]   (/l/ only in 2nd syllable)
  whole, hole  [hOw]
  wholly       [hOwli]   (/l/ ambisyllabic, triggering vowel
                          allophone in 1st syllable)

> At 12:50 pm -0600 10/10/00, dirk elzinga wrote:
> >I'm
> >inclined to think that /p/ isn't ambisyllabic, and that there is no
> >such thing as genuine ambisyllabicity.
>
> That's, as you know, been my inclination as an amateur linguist - nice to
> find a professional linguist taking a similar view.  Tho it seems to lead
> us to different conclusions regarding _happy_.
Last time I wasn't hopelessly out-of-touch with phonological theory (10+ years
ago), it seemed that just about nobody accepted ambisyllabicity, principally
for theory-internal reasons (such as the violation of constituency principles
that Dirk mentioned in a previous post). So if ambisyllabicity has got
more fashionable then I too am delighted.

--And.