Re: THEORY: NATLANGS: Phonology and Phonetics: Tetraphthongs, Triphthongs, Diphthongs

Tristan Alexander McLeay skrev:
> On 27/05/06, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote:
>
>> There are of course other possible criteria as well.
>> I would like to see English [ju] as a diphthong since
>> there are no other jV sequences that can appear after
>> a consonant or consonant cluster, and in particular
>> after an initial consonant or consonant cluster.
>> To be sure sequences like [j@] do occur in words
>> like _barbarian_, but AFAIU they are still in free
>> variation with disyllabic [i@] or [I@] sequences
>> depending on style and tempo, which [ju] is not.
>
>
> In some varieties of British English, I think they say things like
> [kjO:] for "cure". OTOH, in Australian English, /jU@/ was for the most
> part treated separately from /U@/ when /U@/ was lost.
Which may only mean that they have acquired a new rising
diphthong /jO/...

> More generally, note that the behavior of words beginning with [jV],
> V!=/u/ is the same as words beginning [jV], V==/u/. They both take
> "a", not "an" as would be expected of a word starting with a vowel;
> they both take [D@], not [Di]; and in non-rhotic dialects, they both
> prohibit epenthetic/underlying/intrusive/linking [r\]. This contrasts
> with the behavior of "uo" in Italian, which is obviously
> diphthongal... From my perspective, if it looks like a consonant and
> barks like a consonant, it's a consonant, and there's just an
> interesting distributional quirk.
...but these are more persuasive arguments...

> I think in spoonerisms, /j/ after a consonant is also usually treated
> as part of the onset, indicating English speakers think of it as a
> consonant.
...and this is very persuasive!

I still think, however that in a spelling reform /ju/ ought to
be given a unitary grapheme, since it is in morphophonemic
alternation with /V/, and thus /jU@/ or /jO:/ ought to be
spelled annalogously as |ju| + |r|.


--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se

    "Maybe" is a strange word.  When mum or dad says it
    it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
    means "no"!

                            (Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)

Reply