Re: p^ho'nemIts) 'englIS
| From: | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, June 24, 2004, 14:29 |
|---|
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 01:39:14AM -0500, Nik Taylor wrote:
> Or, since /@/ doesn't exist in your proposal, to allow [@] as an
> epenthetic vowel under certain conditions, thus [g@.no.mo'nIs.tIts)]
Good idea! Heck, allow it between any pair of cosyllabic consonants, since
you never know what kind of cluster might be problematic for Joe Random
Speaker, with the caveat that [@]-introduced syllables don't count for
purposes of determing stress. [g@.no.mo'nIs.tI.t@s] would then
be a legal pronunciation. Although a phonemic distinction
between [@] and unstressed [I] is a tad close for my taste . . .
-Mark