Re: English syllable structure

At 6:11 PM -0500 12/04/01, Muke Tever wrote:
>From: "Dirk Elzinga" <Dirk_Elzinga@...>
>  > (I can only think of [OINk] as a potential
>>  exception, but that only gets us 'oink' and 'boink'; these forms are
>>  onomatopoetic and arguably not part of core grammar.)
>
>Well, onomatopoeic maybe, but that they should appear as verbs in ordinary use
>suggests that they're part of the acceptable English syllable pattern--as
>opposed to something like, oh, /mrIkf/.
Right. While they are arguably not part of core grammar, I wouldn't
argue it for exactly the reason you give.

>  > So the monstrosity you cite can't be a possible syllable.
>
>There's always hoping ;)  I don't think a form in /Armpf/ would be
>too off-base,
>really.  "Hurmph" exists, so...
I think that this is an attempt to render [hm_0m?], rather than a
bone fide lexical item.

>  > Taking account of phonotactic patterns will trim the 30,000 figure quite a
>bit.
>
>True, but not, I imagine, to anywhere near the neighborhood of 400.
400?!! I had understood 4000, which is closer to the figure of 5000 I
once heard.

>     *Muke!

--
Dirk Elzinga                                            Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

"Speech is human, silence is divine, yet also brutish and dead;
therefore we must learn both arts."
- Thomas Carlyle