Re: THEORY: counterpick (was: Re: THEORY: picking nits)

On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, BP Jonsson wrote:

> At 09:30 -0600 28.6.1999, dirk elzinga wrote:
> >On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, Matt Pearson wrote:
> >
> >> Dirk Elzinga wrote:
> >>
> >> >Actually, 'twoib' is not a possible English syllable. Consider: words
> >> >which begin with [tw] cannot have a round vowel following (we pronounce
> >> >'two' as [tu], after all, and get rid of that [w]), and the only
> >> >consonants allowed following the diphthongs [oi] and [aw] are alveolar;
> >> >they can never be of any other place of articulation. So 'twib' would be
> >> >a fine English word, or even 'toin', but never 'twoib'. [Caveat lector:
> >> >the forgoing information is my recollection of an English phonology
> >> >seminar I participated in about 3 years ago; counterexamples are
> >> >probable and welcome!]
> >>
> >> Well, there's "oink", "boink", and "zoinks", which have [oi] followed by
> >> a velar nasal.  Granted, "oink" is (allegedly) onomatopoetic and "boink"
> >> and "zoinks" are pretty slangy, but they're still valid English words.
> >
> >Thanks. These would be genuine counterexamples, as far as I'm concerned.
> >Because they are neologisms and onomatopoeia, some might argue that
> >they really don't count, and that the generalization still stands. I
> >don't know that I'd take that position, though. However, I still am
> >deeply suspicious of [oib] as a possible syllable rhyme ...
> >
> >Dirk
>
> What about "foible"?  Neither neologism nor onomatopoetic.  Probably
> French, tho!
I would syllabify "foible" as [foi.bL], where [L] is a syllabic liquid.
So the generalization holds ...

Dirk

--
Dirk Elzinga
dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu                   "All grammars leak."
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~elzinga/                 -Edward Sapir