Re: THEORY: NATLANGS: Phonology and Phonetics: Tetraphthongs, Triphthongs, Diphthongs
| From: | Tristan Alexander McLeay <conlang@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Saturday, May 27, 2006, 13:39 |
|---|
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.
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.
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.
--
Tristan.
Replies