Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site bcsaic.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm
From: michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael b maxwell)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Double 'R'
Message-ID: <394@bcsaic.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Dec-85 11:51:51 EST
Article-I.D.: bcsaic.394
Posted: Tue Dec  3 11:51:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Dec-85 06:16:15 EST
References: <2176@brl-tgr.UUCP> <7100022@iuvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael b maxwell)
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle
Lines: 47

In article <7100022@iuvax.UUCP> reilly@iuvax.UUCP writes:
>...What I mean is that if one accepts the
>Sonority Hierarchy as defining the canonical syllable as an increase
>up to the vocalic nucleus and a decrease in sonority (by sonority
>hierarchy, i mean stop < low fricative < high fricative (eg /s/) <
>nasal < liquid < glide (r,y,w) < vowel constitutes a hierachy of
>sonority--except for nasals, this corresponds basically to how open
>your mouth is!), then you have to face the question:  what is the
>s doing there in words like sky, scrunch, etc.
I guess that's my point; why should you accept the Sonority Hierarchy
*and* the definition of the canonical syllable?  What independent
evidence is there that the Sonority Hierarchy is important to the
syllable structure?  Or that syllables are *necessarily* canonical?

>Also homorganic
>nasal clusters common in Bantu, like ntaa in KiRundi.
I vaguely remember an article in Linguistic Enquirer (sic) in 1979 on
this subject.  If I recall right, the conclusion was that some nasal
clusters are clusters, while others are single consonants--i.e. that
they behaved phonologically as C, not CC (not even C$C).  In
time-honored tradition of the usnet, I don't have the reference with
me...

>...onsets [in English] are much more constrained phonetically/
>phonologically than codas.
Doesn't Hooper's hierarchy predict that both should be equally
constrained?  Maybe you talk about this in your LSA paper.  If so, can
you summarize?

>...Anyway, I agree with you that Hopper is making
>an ad hoc move.  But so what.  The /s/ still needs some explanation.
Does it?  Her assumption is that phonology is necessarily "natural," and
from that standpoint, it does need an explanation.  But maybe phonology
is not necessarily natural, as Anderson has argued...

>Selkirk has recently written a very interesting paper on the sonority
>hierarchy in a fetschrift (however you spell it) for Morris Halle.
Yet another festschrift for Halle?  Or is this the 1972(?) one?

>	Sorry if I'm rattling on and on.  I was very excited to see that
>someone had responded to my note, and that person knows some lingustics.
Rattle on!  Maybe some more linguists will respond!  By the way, do you
do any syntax?
-- 
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
	...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm