Re: CHAT: Importance of stress

At 2:47 pm -0600 26/1/00, Matt Pearson wrote:
[....]
>
>Some linguists have argued that syllabification tends to follow the
>following set of constraints:
>
>-- Avoid vowel-initial syllables whenever possible
>-- Avoid consonant-final syllables whenever possible
>-- Avoid clusters of two or more consonants within the same syllable
>
>I've ranked these constraints in order of inviolability (based on cross-
>linguistic tendencies).  These constraints would produce the following
>syllabification patterns, which seem to be valid for a large number of
>natlangs that I'm aware of:
>
>(1)  VCV is almost always syllabified as V.CV, not VC.V
Almost always?  I can't ever recall coming across an exception (before
Amman Iar  :)

I had assumed, as you state below, that it is a (near) universal tendency.

>(2)  VCCV is typically syllabified as VC.CV, not V.CCV or VCC.V
I know of no instances of VCC.V
Certainly VC.CV is probably more common, but there are quite a few examples
of V.CCV   In Classical Greek & Latin a combination of plosive +
liquid/nasal could give either VC.CV or V.CCV

>(3)  VCCCV is typically syllabified as VC.CCV or VCC.CV, not
>VCCC.V or V.CCCV
In Old Church Slavonic IIRC all syllables are open, therefore the division
must be V.CCCV   I believe this is still a strong tendency in (many) Slav
langs.

The overriding tendency has always seemed to me towards syllables ending in
vowels, if possible, or as simple consonant forms as the phonology of the
language permits.

>Although (2) and (3) are violated in many languages, some linguists
>have argued that (1) is a strong tendency - a near universal, even.
Indeed.

>Of course, the question of how to syllabify consonants is complicated
>in some languages (like English) which display "ambisyllabicity"
>effects.  In certain VCV sequences in English, native speaker intuitions
>suggest that the consonant actually belongs to both syllables at once.
>For example, when asked to break up the word "happy" [haepi] into
>syllables, many native speakers will hesitate between [hae.pi] and
>[haep.i].
['h&.pi] is common enough.  But ['h&p.i] I've never heard, tho ['h&p.?i] I
have.

When asked to pronounce these words slowly, syllable
>by syllable, they will often come up with [haep...pi], repeating the
>consonant as both coda and onset.
The normal pronunciation of such words in Anglo-Welsh does have a
gemminated /p/, thus ['hap.pi]

IME English generally seems to vary between ['h&.pi] & ['h&p.pi] according
to dialect & idiolect.

>Perhaps (he said, brandishing Occam's razor one final time)
Not a bad thing to wield IMO  :)

Ray.


=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================