Re: Syllabic consonants (was: Re: Beek)

> > As a matter of fact, if the /l/ in <tovleis> turns
> > consonental because it can in that context, then I cannot think of any
> > reasonable way to for the /m/ in <mta> not to do exactly the same
> > thing.  (I think it would be completely unnatural if it didn't behave in
> > the same way.  Can you think of any reasoning to the contrary?)
>
>There are two underlying phonemes, /m/ and /m=/.  /m/ becomes [m=] when
>required by phonetic rules, but underlying /m=/ *never* becomes
>non-syllabic.  Thus, the form realized as ['m=ta] is underlyingly
>/'m=ta/, but the form realized as [m='ta] is underlyingly /'mta/.
>
>So, when you add emi-, you get a minimal pair between [emi'm=ta] and
>[emim'ta].
Ah!  Thank you for the idea.  That makes perfect sense that there could be
phonemically syllabic consonants and phonemically non-syllabic ones with a
syllabic allophone.  I don't know that I'll chose to do it that way, but at
least now I have the choice.  I'm not sure if I would have come up with
that solution on my own.

Isidora