Re: syllable cut prosody [was: Re: Swedish vowel phonemes]
|From:||Roger Mills <romilly@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, February 13, 2003, 4:26|
Dirk Elzinga wrote:
> If consonant length is predictable (gemination occurs to make a lightsyllable heavy under stress), and vowel length is predictable (vowels are
lengthened to make a light syllable heavy under stress), maybe the real
distinction is syllable cut. Syllables with loose contact will lengthen the
vowel under stress, while syllables with close contact will geminate the
consonant. Syllables which are closed are characterized by close contact in
any case and can be stressed without any type of lengthening.
> A pair of words from Norwegian may be helpful in illustrating thedistinction:
> /hake/ 'chin' becomes ['ha:.k@] -- loose contact
> /hake/ 'pickaxe' becomes ['hak.k@] -- close contact
> Both forms have the same underlying segmental structure; they differ onlyin the syllable cut distinction. With syllable cut prosody, you get to keep
your small vowel inventory, since lengthening is predictable under stress
for syllables in loose contact; and you don't need to commit to underlying
geminates, since gemination is predictable under stress for syllables in
>Admittedly I'm mired in the generative tradition, but where/when would one
specify that one "hake" has close contact, the other "hake" has loose?
Seems to me that's adding another, rather squishy, feature to the ULR, so
why not just opt for shortness (of V) OR tenseness (of C); or even
plus/minus TENSE for vowels, with a morpheme structure rule that specifies
+tense cons. (and vice versa), or a cluster, after -tense V?