Re: USAGE: Schwa and syllabification
|From:||Chris Palmer <chris@...>|
|Date:||Monday, March 15, 2004, 6:46|
Danny Wier writes:
> I honestly don't see how a stop can be syllablic. A fricative like
> [f=] can, obviously. More likely the word would be pronounced more
> like [t@ktf=t] with a barely-noticeable schwa.
You can think of the aspiration of the /t/ as a voiceless schwa, if you
like. If there is any aspiration.
Really, syllabification is a prosodic thing, not a phonetic thing. [+
continuant] doesn't necessarily tell you if the phone is the head of a
syllable, so why is it so strange that [- continuant] doesn't
necessarily preclude the possibility?