Re: English syllable structure

From: "Dirk Elzinga" <Dirk_Elzinga@...>
> >But as it stands that's at least 30,000 possible English syllables,
> >from "uh" to
> >"straurmphst".
> >(Ack!  I didn't even count diphthongs!)
>
> No matter. You also failed to factor in phonotactic patterns. That
> is, not all logically possible combinations of syllable peak and coda
> are attested (there may also be onset-rime restrictions as well).
> Some of these gaps are accidental, but most are principled. For
> example, tense vowels and diphthongs don't occur with non-alveolar
> consonant clusters.
All right.

> (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/.

> 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...

> 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.

    *Muke!

Reply