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

On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, you wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, dirk elzinga 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 ...
I've been watching this thread since I rejoined the list... I was wondering,
how do rules such as these take into account different dialects and accents?
For instance, some people in New York regularly pronounce /r=/ as [oi] when
stressed, thus <verb> /vr=b/ [voib].

--
Eric Christopherson
raccoon@elknet.net      rakkoon78@hotmail.com