Re: A phonology

Thomas R. Wier sikyal:

> Quoting JS Bangs <jaspax@...>:
>
> > Thomas R. Wier sikyal:
> >
> > > Quoting "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...>:
> > >
> > > > Quoting Roger Mills <romilly@...>:
> > > > > Still, mightn't there be a tendency to reanalyze a word like
> > > > up.a > u.pa??
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, no such language exists TMK.
> > >
> > > I meant:  no language exists which divides /upa/ as [up.a].
> >
> > My phonology teachers always claimed that English always divides /N/ to be
> > a coda, so that "singer" should be [siN.r=]. There's some acoustic
> > evidence for this, too.
>
> You mean it's not ambisyllabic?
How does one demonstrate or disprove ambisyllabicity? I suppose that the
occurrence of [&] before [N] in |hanger| suggests ambisyllabicity, since
/&/ is only supposed to occur in closed syllables.

> For me, "singer" is [siNNr=], where [NN] represents an ambisyllabic
> [N] rather than a geminate.  (Is there a diacritic for ambisyllabicity?)
I imagine not, since ambisyllabicity is a phonological feature, not a
phonetic one. Correct me if I'm wrong.


--
Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/blog

Jesus asked them, "Who do you say that I am?"

And they answered, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground
of our being, the kerygma in which we find the ultimate meaning of our
interpersonal relationship."

And Jesus said, "What?"

Reply