Re: USAGE: syllables

Quoting David Starner <dvdeug@...>:

> > However, languages can pick and choose which of these they actually
> > distinguish between. English, for example, uses the following
> classes:
>
> > 1) Stops and fricatives
> > 2) Nasals
> > 3) Liquids and semivowels ([j] and [w])
> > 4) All other vowels
>
> > This obviously combines several of the possible distinctions above.
> > The notion of sonority class also interacts with the idea of
> "minimum
> > sonority distance", which specifies how far apart segments at the
> beginning
> > of a syllable must be. In English, the minimum sonority distance is
> 2.
> > Therefore, [pl], [kr], and [tw] are valid ways to begin an English
> > syllable, but [pm] and [nl] are not since the sonority of those
> segments
> > is too close together.
>
> [sn]ow, [st]ring.
Rules wouldn't be any fun if there weren't exceptions. Could this be taken as
evidence in favour of the idea that Germanic [sp-], [st-] and [sk-] are
monophonemic?

In Tairezazh, the sonority hierarchy appears to be:

1) Stops and frics.
2) Nasals and liquids.
3) Vowels.

                                                              Andreas

Reply