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

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!

/BP

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  B.Philip Jonsson  <bpj@...> <melroch@...>

        Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
                                            (Tacitus)