Re: Why Consonants?

On 18/02/07, Aquamarine Demon <aquamarine_demon@...> wrote:
...
> >>There's also the concept of "vocoids" and "contoids" which allow for a
> less circular definition, but I'm pretty sure [l, r\] (and all
> approximants) are classified as "vocoids" in that system, yet they're
> usually *not* nuclei.<<
>
> I've not heard of that concept; however, l and r can be syllabic in
> American English: butter, bottle. I'm not sure this is what you meant,
> though...
Indeed it's not. I was saying there was a classification (according to
Ray, I had the vowel/consonant vs vocoid/contoid distinction
backwards) in which vowels can be defined on a phonetic basis, rather
than their function in a syllable.

But according to this definition, [l, r\] are classified alongside
vowels like [a, e] and opposed to consonants like [p, s], even tho
they don't *usually* form the nucleus of a syllable. "Usually" being
an important point...

So I'm basically saying: You're either wrong (sorry!), or you're
saying something that's circular, and therefore misleading in the
context.

--
Tristan.