Re: USAGE: Schwa and syllabification

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?


--
http://chris.nodewarrior.org/