Re: English syllable structure

John:
> And Rosta wrote:
>
> > /lf/ also conforms to Dirk's generalization (okay, I know he didn't
> > originate it!) for some speakers (who have /Q/ rather than /ow/
> > in _golf_. /lp/, /lk/ and (probably) /lm/ also conform for all
> > speakers. So do /pt/ and /kt/ stems and, with a handful of exceptions,
> > /ps/ and /ks/ stems. /ft/ too conforms except for dialects that
> > had A-lengthening (e.g. _shaft_).
>
> I'm confused: these clusters all look alveolar to me.  They
> have either alveolar lateral /l/, alveolar spirant /s/, or
> alveolar stop /t/.  The generalization was about non-alveolar
> clusters, and I still think these are very few.
> I agree that /mf/ is one, although most of your examples
> are imitative; "bumph" is an arbitrary shortening of
> "bum-fodder".
The stronger generalization is that the clusters must be all-coronal.
The weaker generalization is that the clusters can't be all-noncoronal.

The stronger generalization holds up fairly well.

> Additionally, if /tS/ and /dZ/ count as non-alveolar clusters,
> the generalization doesn't work: pooch, page.
Ergo, /tS/ and /dZ/ must be coronal (& so were excluded from my list
of noncoronal phonemes).

--And.