Re: orthographic syllabification [was: Re: Moraic codas]

John:
> dirk elzinga wrote:
>
> > 1.  Lax vowels in English strongly prefer to be in a closed
> >     syllable.
> >
> > 2.  Syllables strongly prefer to have onsets.
> >
> > 3.  A consonant may not belong to two syllables at once.
>
> > Of the three, I think that 3 probably has the weakest force [...].
> > 2 isn't very convincing either [...].
>
> > 1 seems to be the weightiest [...].
>
> [snip]
>
> > In my earlier post, I tried to represent a majority opinion,
> > which discounts the possibility of ambisyllabicity, and which is
> > against the violation of the onset requirement.
>
> In short, the majority opinion breaks the weightiest rule to
> preserve the two weaker rules.
>
> *snicker*
Because of the powerful universalist bias in linguistics which in
phonology is strongest of all. Universalism tries to explain all
languages at once. Parochialism tries to explain each language
on its own. I'm a fanatical parochialist, so of course I deny
(3).

> Rule 2 seems to me particularly weak in English, however useful it
> may be elsewhere, as indicated by the vast number of English words
> which begin with slack vowels.  German, closely related as it
> is, has no such words.
>
> > In a perfect world free of the stultifying Traditions of the
> > Fathers, the Rational Linguist would boldly proclaim the
> > existence of Ambisyllabic Consonants in English, since that is
> > the conclusion demanded by the Data.
>
> Why reject 3 rather than 2 in the perfect world?
At least partly because belong to a syllable is thought of as
a part:whole relation; the coda of a syllable is part of that
syllable. Parts cannot belong to two different wholes neither
of which contains the other. Furthermore, syntax structure
is also generally thought of in part:whole terms, and there
are certain theoretical attractions to both phonology and
syntax sharing the same structural apparatus.

> > I haven't made up my mind.
>
>         The only sensible answer to the challenge "Stand!"
>         in the sciences is Falstaff's: "so I do, against my will".
>         One's "definite position" is a liability and a source
>         of error.
>
>                 --Northrop Frye, from memory
I can't bear to be agnostic about stuff. It makes me feel as though
I don't know anything. I much prefer to embrace a position fervently
and be prepared to immediately abandon it for another as soon as a
better position comes along. I prefer serial uxoriosity to permanent
celibacy. (Metaphorically, that is.)

--And.

Reply