dirk elzinga wrote:
> 1. Lax vowels in English strongly prefer to be in a closed
> syllable.
>
> 2. Syllables strongly prefer to have onsets.
>
> 3. A consonant may not belong to two syllables at once.
>
> Of the three, I think that 3 probably has the weakest force [...].
> 2 isn't very convincing either [...].
> 1 seems to be the weightiest [...].
[snip]
> In my earlier post, I tried to represent a majority opinion,
> which discounts the possibility of ambisyllabicity, and which is
> against the violation of the onset requirement.
In short, the majority opinion breaks the weightiest rule to
preserve the two weaker rules.
*snicker*
Rule 2 seems to me particularly weak in English, however useful it
may be elsewhere, as indicated by the vast number of English words
which begin with slack vowels. German, closely related as it
is, has no such words.
> In a perfect world free of the stultifying Traditions of the
> Fathers, the Rational Linguist would boldly proclaim the
> existence of Ambisyllabic Consonants in English, since that is
> the conclusion demanded by the Data.
Why reject 3 rather than 2 in the perfect world?
> I haven't made up my mind.
The only sensible answer to the challenge "Stand!"
in the sciences is Falstaff's: "so I do, against my will".
One's "definite position" is a liability and a source
of error.
--Northrop Frye, from memory
--
There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@...>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein