Re: Syllabic consonants (was: Re: Beek)

At 02:38 PM 9/15/03 -0400, you wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 02:09:56PM -0400, Isidora Zamora wrote:
> > >So the /r/ is not syllabic here?  Is it ever?\
> >
> > The /r/ *is* syllabic in <karm>, and the word should be divided as
> > kar-m.
>
>I'm confused.  If the /r/ is syllabic, then wouldn't it be ka-r-m?
>  Three syllables?
No, Mark, you're not confused; *I* am (sigh).  I need to *proofread* my
posts more carefully to avoid this sort of thing.  The */r/* is *not*
syllabic and never will be.  The */m/*, on the other hand, *is* syllabic
but won't be if you follow it up with a vowel.  (Apparently I can't tell
the difference beteween an /r/ and an /m/ when I see them on a screen, and
I very definitely told you the wrong thing in my previous post, leading to
your state of confusion.  Thank you for asking me to clarify.  For some
unknown reason, I though that you were asking whether the /m/ were
syllabic, and I replied accordingly that it was -- except that I wrote /r/
for /m/.  I really don't know what's wrong with me today...)

> > But if the word were to have a suffix beginning in a vowel added to
> > it, then the /r/ would cease to be syllabic, moving into the onset of the
> > second syllable.  Let's see...I need an example, and I don't have one
> > because this language is in the *very* early stages of development...so why
> > don't I just make up a case ending on the spot?  How about -ab?  Then we
> > get <karmab> 'very many shields', divided into syllables as kar-mab.
>
>That demonstrates that the <m> stops being syllabic, but it doesn't
>change anything about the <r>'s context.
It certainly does demonstrate that, and it certainly doesn't change
anything about the /r/'s context.  The answer to your original question is
that the /r/ in <karm> will never be syllabic.  Please accept my apologies
for the massive amount of confusion I have sown.

Isidora

Reply